The meaning of things. Didactic objects and the implementation of educational theory

References

• Adams, C. A., and T. L. Thompson. 2011. “Interviewing Objects. Including Educational Technologies as Qualitative Research Participants.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 24: 733–750. doi:10.1080/09518398.2010.529849.
   Google Scholar
• Ammon, S. 2013. “Entwerfen. Eine Epistemische Praxis.” In Long Lost Friends: Zu Den Wechselbeziehungen Zwischen Design-, Medien- Und Wissenschaftsforschung, edited by C. Mareis and C. Windgaetter, 133–155. Zuerich: Diaphanes.
   Google Scholar
• Asbrand, B., M. Martens, and D. Petersen. 2013. “Die Rolle Der Dinge in Schulischen Lehr-Lernprozessen.” Zeitschrift Fuer Erziehungswissenschaft 16: 171–188. doi:10.1007/s11618-013-0413-1.
   Google Scholar
• Basalla, G. 1988. The Evolution of Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Berg, M. 1998. “The Politics of Technology: On Bringing Social Theory into Technological Design.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 23 (4): 456–490. doi:10.1177/016224399802300406.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bijker, W. E., and J. Law, Eds. 1994. Shaping Technology/Building Society. Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Birmingham, P., C. Davies, and C. Greiffenhagen. 2002. “Turn to Face the Bard. Making Sense of Three-Way Interactions between Teacher, Pupils and Technology in the Classroom.” Education, Communication & Information 2: 139–161. doi:10.1080/1463631021000025330.
   Google Scholar
• Braun-Thuermann, H. 2005. Innovation. Bielefeld: Transcript.
   Google Scholar
• Burnett, C. 2011. “The (Im)Materiality of Educational Space: Interactions between Material, Connected and Textual Dimensions of Networked Technology Use in Schools.” E–Learning and Digital Media 8 (3): 214–226. doi:10.2304/elea.2011.8.3.214.
   Google Scholar
• Callon, M. 1986. “Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation. Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay.” In Power, Action and Belief. A New Sociology of Knowledge? edited by J. Law, 196–223. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Daston, L., Editor. 2004. Things that Talk: Object Lessons from Art and Science. New York, NY: Zone Books.
   Google Scholar
• Dizdar, D. 2006. Translation. Um- Und Irrwege. Berlin: Frank und Timme.
   Google Scholar
• Dizdar, D. 2012. “General Translation Theory.” In Handbook of Translation Studies. 3 vols. edited by L. van Doorslaer and Y. Gambier, 52–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Emerson, R. M., R. I. Fretz, and R. I. Shaw. 1995. Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fenwick, T., and R. Edwards. 2010. Actor-Network Theory in Education. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Foray, D., and J. Raffo. 2014. “The Emergence of an Educational Tool Industry: Opportunities and Challenges for Innovation in Education.” Research Policy 43: 1707–1715. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.07.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greiffenhagen, C. 2014. “The Materiality of Mathematics. Presenting Mathematics at the Blackboard.” The British Journal of Sociology 65: 502–528. doi:10.1111/1468-4446.12037.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamilton, D. 2009. “Patents: A Neglected Source in the History of Education.” History of Education 38 (2): 303–310. doi:10.1080/00467600802650849.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kali, Y., P. Goodyear, and L. Markauskaite. 2011. “Research Design Practices and Design Cognition: Contexts, Experiences and Pedagogical Knowledge-In-Pieces.” Learning, Media and Technology 36 (2): 129–149. doi:10.1080/17439884.2011.553621.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalthoff, H., T. Cress, and T. Roehl. 2016. “Einleitung: Materialitaet in Kultur Und Gesellschaft.” In Materialitaet. Herausforderung Fuer Die Sozial- Und Kulturwissenschaften, edited by H. Kalthoff, T. Cress, and T. Roehl, 11–44. Paderborn: Fink.
   Google Scholar
• Kalthoff, H., and T. Roehl. 2011. “Interactivity and Interobjectivity. Knowledge Objects and Discourse in Class.” Human Studies 34 (4): 451–469. doi:10.1007/s10746-011-9204-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knorr Cetina, K. 2001. “Objectual Practice.” In The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, edited by T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina and E. von Savigny, 175–188. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Knorr-Cetina, K. 1997. “Sociality with Objects: Social Relations in Postsocial Knowledge Societies.” Theory, Culture & Society 14: 1–30. doi:10.1177/026327697014004001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kraemer, S. 2015. Media, Messenger, Transmission. An Approach to Media Philosophy. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laclau, E. 1996. “Why Do Empty Signifiers Matter to Politics?” In Emancipation(s), edited by E. Laclau, 36–46. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Lange, J. 2018. “Education Made in Industry. Die Gestaltung Physikalischer Experimente Fuer Den Grundschulunterricht.” Zeitschrift Fuer Paedagogik 64: 215–231.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. 1999. Pandora’s Hope. Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lawn, M., and I. Grosvenor, eds. 2005. Materialities of Schooling. Design, Technology, Objects, Routines. Oxford: Symposium Books.
   Google Scholar
• Lynch, M., and D. H. Macbeth. 1998. “Demonstrating Physics Lessons.” In Thinking Practices in Mathematics and Science Learning, edited by J. G. Greeno and S. V. Goldman, 269–297. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• MacKenzie, D., and J. Wajcman. 1985. The Social Shaping of Technology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E. 2009. Multimedia Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McGregor, J. 2004. “Spatiality and the Place of the Material in Schools.” Pedagogy, Culture & Society 12 (3): 347–372. doi:10.1080/14681360400200207.
   Google Scholar
• Nespor, J. 1997. Tangled up in School: Politics, Space, Bodies, and Signs in the Educational Process. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Remmele, M., K. Weiers, and A. Martens. 2015. “Stereoscopic 3d’s Impact on Constructing Spatial Hands-On Representations.” Computers & Education 85: 74–83. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.02.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rheinberger, H.-J. 1997. Toward a History of Epistemic Things. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sauter, H. 1985. “Der Unterrichtliche Einsatz Statischer Medien.” In Medien Im Unterricht. Intention, Analyse, Methode, edited by A. Schnitzer, 69–90. Muenchen: Ehrenwirth.
   Google Scholar
• Schulz-Schaeffer, I. 1996. “Software-Entwicklung Zwischen Ingenieur- Und Designwissenschaft. Ueberzeugungskraft Und Nuetzliche Widerspruechlichkeit Von Software-Engineering Und Software-Gestaltung.” In Technikleitbilder Auf Dem Pruefstand. Leitbild-Assessment Aus Sicht Der Informatik- Und Computergeschichte, edited by H. D. Hellige, 115–140. Berlin: Edition Sigma.
   Google Scholar
• Selwyn, N. 2003. “Schooling the Mobile Generation: The Future for Schools in the Mobile-Networked Society.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 24: 131–144. doi:10.1080/01425690301905.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simmel, G. 1908/1992. “Exkurs Ueber Den Schmuck.” In Soziologie. Untersuchungen Ueber Die Form Der Vergesellschaftung, edited by G. Simmel, 414–421. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.
   Google Scholar
• Simmel, G. 1909/1957. “Bruecke Und Tuer.” In Bruecke Und Tuer. Essays Des Philosophen Zur Geschichte, Kunst Und Gesellschaft, edited by G. Simmel, 1–7. Stuttgart: Koehler.
   Google Scholar
• Sørensen, E. 2009. The Materiality of Learning. Technology and Knowledge in Educational Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Spradley, J. P, . 1979. The Ethnographic Interview. Rinehart and Winston, Chicago: Holt.
   Google Scholar
• Staeheli, U. 2012. “Listing the Global: Dis/Connectivity beyond Representation?” Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory 13: 233–246. doi:10.1080/1600910X.2012.724646.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, A., and J. M. Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research. Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• van Lente, H., and A. Rip. 1998. “Expectations in Technological Developments: An Example of Prospective Structures to Be Filled in by Agency.” In Getting New Technologies Together. Studies in Making Sociotechnical Order, edited by C. Disco and B. Meulen, 203–231. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Verbeek, P. 2011. Moralizing Technology. Understanding and Designing the Morality of Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weber, M. 1978. Economy and Society. An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weyer, J., U. Kirchner, L. Riedl, and J. F. K. Schmidt. 1997. Technik, Die Gesellschaft Schafft. Soziale Netzwerke Als Ort Der Technikgenese. Berlin: Edition Sigma.
   Google Scholar