Article published in:
Interacting with Objects: Language, materiality, and social activity
Edited by Maurice Nevile, Pentti Haddington, Trine Heinemann and Mirka Rauniomaa
[Not in series 186] 2014
► pp. 227–248

To follow the materials

The detection, diagnosis and correction of mistakes in craft education

| Linköping University
| University of Gothenburg
This chapter investigates the role and function of textile materials in relation to corrective sequences in craft education. The analyses explicate how problems are detected, how problems are diagnosed and how problems are corrected and solved. When students encounter problems related to their making of a textile object, there is a disruption in the progression of the activity. Disruptions in progressivity in the analysed setting are not heard in intervening talk, but seen in the ways the materials have turned out. Correspondingly, actions used to overcome these problems, whether conducted in talk or otherwise, are not done on talk but on actions and materials involved in the making of objects.
Published online: 12 September 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.186.10eks
References
Arminen, I., & Poikus, P.
(2009) Diagnostic reasoning in the use of travel management system. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 18(2–3), 251–276. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, E., & Heritage, J.
(2006) Taking the history: Questioning during comprehensive history-taking. In J. Heritage, & D.W. Maynard (Eds.), Communication in medical care: Interaction between primary care physicians and patients (pp. 151–184). New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Büscher, M., O’Neill, J., & Rooksby, J.
(2009) Designing for diagnosing: Introduction to the special issue on diagnostic work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 18(2–3), 109–128. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ekström, A.
(2012) Instructional work in textile craft: Studies of interaction, embodiment and the making of objects. Stockholms universitet: Studies in Education in Arts and Professions, 3.Google Scholar
Ekström, A., Lindwall, O., & Säljö, R.
(2009) Questions, instructions and modes of listening in the joint production of guided action: A study of student-teacher collaboration in handicraft education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(5), 497–514. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fasulo, A., & Monzoni, C.
(2009) Assessing mutable objects: A multimodal analysis. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42(4), 362–376. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, H.
(2002) Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Goffman, E.
(1978) Response cries. Language 54(4), 787–815. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C.
(1994) Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 181–209. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1997) The blackness of black: Color categories as situated practice. In L.B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools, and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 111–140). Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 8–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M.H.
(1996) Seeing as a situated activity: Formulating planes. In Y. Engeström, & D. Middleton (Eds.), Cognition and communication at work (pp. 61–95). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heinemann, T., Lindström, A., & Steensig, J.
(2011) Addressing epistemic incongruency in question-answer sequences through the use of epistemic adverbs. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 107–130). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J.
(1984) Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hindmarsh, J., & Heath, C.
(2000) Sharing the tools of the trade: The interactional constitution of workplace objects. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 29(5), 523–562. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Transcending the object in embodied interaction. In J. Coupland, & R. Gwyn (Eds.), Discourse, the body and identity (pp. 43–69). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hindmarsh, J., Reynolds, P., & Dunne, S.
(2011) Exhibiting understanding: The body in apprenticeship. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 489–503. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, T.
(2000) The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) The textility of making. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1), 91–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ivarsson, J.
(2010) Developing the construction sight: Architectural education and technological change. Visual Communication, 9(2), 1–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G.
(1984) Transcription notation. In J.M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 11–38). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1987) On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. In G. Button, & J.R.E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation(pp. 86–100). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Keevallik, L.
(2010) Bodily quoting in dance correction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(4), 401–426. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koschmann, T., LeBaron, C., Goodwin, C., & Feltovich, P.
(2011) “Can you see the cystic artery yet?”: A simple matter of trust. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 521–541. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lindwall, O., & Ekström, A.
(2012) Instruction-in-interaction: The teaching and learning of a manual skill. Human Studies 35(1), 27–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lindwall, O., & Lymer, G.
(2005) Vulgar competence, ethnomethodological indifference and curricular design. In T. Koschmann, D.D. Suthers, & T.-W. Chan (Eds.), Computer supportfor collaborative learning: The next 10 years (pp. 388–397). Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(2011) Uses of “understand” in science education. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 452–474. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lindwall, O., Lymer, G., & Ivarsson, J.
(2008) Att ge och ta kritik: Examination i arkitektutbildning som hybrid aktivitet [Delivering and receiving criticism: Assessment in architectural education as a hybrid activity]. In K. Borg, & V. Lindberg (Eds.), Kunskapande, kommunikation och bedömning i gestaltande utbildning [Knowing, communication and assessment in aesthetic education] (pp. 199–211). Stockholm: Stockholm University Press.Google Scholar
Livingston, E.
(2000) The availability of mathematics as an inspectable domain of practice through the use of origami. In S. Hester, & D. Francis (Eds.), Local educational order: Ethnomethodological studies of knowledge in action (pp. 245–270). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Ethnographies of reason. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Lymer, G., Lindwall, O., & Ivarsson, J.
(2011) Space and discourse interleaved: Intertextuality and interpretation in the education of architects. Social Semiotics, 21(2), 197–217. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Macbeth, D.
(2004) The relevance of repair for classroom correction. Language in Society, 33(5), 703–736. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L.
(2009) The embodied and negotiated production of assessments in instructed actions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42(4), 329–361. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, K.M.
(2004) Imagination as joint activity: The case of architectural interaction. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 11(4), 267–278. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Collaborative imagining: The interactive use of gestures, talk, and graphic representation in architectural practice. Semiotica, 156(1), 113–145.Google Scholar
(2012) Transmodality and temporality in design interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(14), 1966–1981. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, K.M., Ivarsson, J., & Lymer, G.
(2012) Embodied reasoning in architectural critique. Design Studies, 33(6), 53–556. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nevile, M.
(2007) Action in time: Ensuring timeliness for collaborative work in the airline cockpit. Language in Society, 36(2), 233–257. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Poole, E., Edwards, K., & Jarvis, L.
(2009) The home network as a socio-technical system: Understanding the challenges of remote home network problem diagnosis. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 18(2–3), 277–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reed, B., Reed, D., & Haddon, E.
(2013) NOW or NOT NOW: Coordinating restarts in the pursuit of learnables in musical masterclasses. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(1), 22–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G.
(1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sanne, J.
(2009) Making matters speak: Trouble-shooting in railway maintenance. In M. Büscher, D. Goodwin, & J. Mesman (Eds.), Ethnographies of diagnostic work: Dimensions of transformative practice (pp. 54–72). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E.A.
(2007) Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H.
(1977) The preference for self-correction in the organisation of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Streeck, J.
(2013) Interaction and the living body. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 69–90. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C.
(Eds.) (2011) Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weeks, P.
(1985) Error-correction techniques and sequences in instructional settings: Toward a comparative framework. Human Studies, 8(3), 195–233. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1996) A rehearsal of a Beethoven passage: An analysis of its correction talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29(3), 247–290. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, D.H.
(1984) Talk and its occasion: The case of calling the police. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 35 (pp. 210–28). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Evans, Bryn & Oskar Lindwall
2020. Show Them or Involve Them? Two Organizations of Embodied Instruction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 53:2 ► pp. 223 ff. Crossref logo
Åberg, Mikaela
2017. Talk, Text, and Tasks in Student-Initiated Instructional Interaction. Discourse Processes 54:8 ► pp. 618 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 october 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.