Cover not available
Part of
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
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.186.10eks
References (49)
Arminen, I., & Poikus, P. (2009). Diagnostic reasoning in the use of travel management system. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 18(2–3), 251–276. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fasulo, A., & Monzoni, C. (2009). Assessing mutable objects: A multimodal analysis. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42(4), 362–376. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 181–209. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2013). The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 8–23. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2010). The textility of making. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1), 91–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ivarsson, J. (2010). Developing the construction sight: Architectural education and technological change. Visual Communication, 9(2), 1–21. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindwall, O., & Ekström, A. (2012). Instruction-in-interaction: The teaching and learning of a manual skill. Human Studies 35(1), 27–49. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macbeth, D. (2004). The relevance of repair for classroom correction. Language in Society, 33(5), 703–736. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2009). The embodied and negotiated production of assessments in instructed actions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42(4), 329–361. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murphy, K.M. (2004). Imagination as joint activity: The case of architectural interaction. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 11(4), 267–278. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murphy, K.M., Ivarsson, J., & Lymer, G. (2012). Embodied reasoning in architectural critique. Design Studies, 33(6), 53–556. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevile, M. (2007). Action in time: Ensuring timeliness for collaborative work in the airline cockpit. Language in Society, 36(2), 233–257. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Streeck, J. (2013). Interaction and the living body. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 69–90. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1996). A rehearsal of a Beethoven passage: An analysis of its correction talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29(3), 247–290. DOI logoGoogle 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 (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Öhman, Anna & Eva Klope
2024. How does it feel? An exploration of teaching perceptive sensoriality in hairdressing education. Nordic Journal of Vocational Education and Training 14:2 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Schmidt, Axel & Arnulf Deppermann
2023. Showing and telling—How directors combine embodied demonstrations and verbal descriptions to instruct in theater rehearsals. Frontiers in Communication 7 DOI logo
Ishino, Mika
2022. Teachers’ embodied mitigation against allocating turns to unwilling students. Classroom Discourse 13:4 ► pp. 343 ff. DOI logo
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. DOI logo
Tuncer, Sylvaine & Pentti Haddington
2020. Object transfers: An embodied resource to progress joint activities and build relative agency. Language in Society 49:1 ► pp. 61 ff. DOI logo
Deppermann, Arnulf
2018. Editorial: Instructions in driving lessons. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 28:2 ► pp. 221 ff. DOI logo
Åberg, Mikaela
2017. Talk, Text, and Tasks in Student-Initiated Instructional Interaction. Discourse Processes 54:8 ► pp. 618 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 september 2024. 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.