Material Constraints for Assistant-Supported Learning
The Case of a Visually Impaired Student in Classroom Interaction
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v7i3.150850Keywords:
visually impaired student, learning support assistant, desk engagement, participation frameworkAbstract
This paper explores classroom desk interaction where the student has a visual impairment (VIS), and the interaction involves a third supportive party, the student’s learning support assistant. Based on video recordings and multimodal conversation analysis, the paper examines how a VIS, his assistant, and the teacher within a contingent socio-material environment work toward solving an assignment. The analysis is organized following the sequential unfolding of the assignment-solving situation, going from a) determining the need for teacher assistance, b) the recruitment of the teacher’s assistance with the assignment, c) how the participation framework for the joint activity of reviewing the assignment is established with the assistant positioning herself as a fellow “learner”, and d) how the issue is identified and solved. The analysis shows the situated properties of the socio-material environment in which the participants and the local material contingencies are assembled and thus become consequential for the collaborative and observable production of the situation.
References
Abrahamson, D., Flood, V. J., Miele, J. A., & Siu, Y.-T. (2019). Enactivism and ethnomethodological conversation analysis as tools for expanding Universal Design for Learning: The case of visually impaired mathematics students. ZDM, 51(2), 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0998-1
Antaki, C., & Chinn, D. (2019). Companions’ dilemma of intervention when they mediate between patients with intellectual disabilities and health staff. Patient Education and Counseling, 102(11), 2024–2030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2019.05.020
Antaki, C., & Wilkinson, R. (2013). Conversation Analysis and the Study of Atypical Populations. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 533–550).
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning (Second Printing edition). Duke University Press Books.
Blatchford, P., Russell, A., & Webster, R. (2012). Reassessing the impact of teaching assistants: How research challenges practice and policy (1st ed). Routledge.
Bosanquet, P., & Radford, J. (2019). Teaching assistant and pupil interactions: The role of repair and topic management in scaffolding learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12231
Brothers, R. (1973). Arithmetic Computation: Achievement of Visually Handicapped Students in Public Schools. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440297303900713
Butler, M., Holloway, L., Marriott, K., & Goncu, C. (2017). Understanding the graphical challenges faced by vision-impaired students in Australian universities. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1177001
Caldwell, J. E., & Teagarden, K. (2006). Adapting Laboratory Curricula for Visually-Impaired Students. ABLE 2006 Proceedings, 28, 357–361.
Caronia, L. (2018). Following and Analyzing an Artifact: Culture-through-Things. In F. Cooren & F. Malbois (Eds.), Methodological and Ontological Principles of Observation and Analysis (pp. 112–139). Routledge.
Caronia, L., & Cooren, F. (2014). Decentering our analytical position: The dialogicity of things. Discourse & Communication, 8(1), 41–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481313503226
Chinn, D. (2022). ‘I Have to Explain to him’: How Companions Broker Mutual Understanding Between Patients with Intellectual Disabilities and Health Care Practitioners in Primary Care. Qualitative Health Research, 32(8–9), 1215–1229. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323221089875
Chinn, D., & Rudall, D. (2021). Who is Asked and Who Gets to Answer the Health-Care Practitioner’s Questions When Patients with Intellectual Disabilities Attend UK General Practice Health Checks with Their Companions? Health Communication, 36(4), 487–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2019.1700440
Clamp, S. (1997). Mathematics. In H. Mason, S. McCall, C. Arter, M. McLinden, & J. Stone (Eds.), Visual impairment: Access to education for children and young people (pp. 218–235). David Fulton Publishers.
Due, B. L. (2021). Distributed Perception: Co-Operation between Sense-Able, Actionable, and Accountable Semiotic Agents. Symbolic Interaction, 44(1), 134–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.538
Due, B. L. (2023a). Assemmethodology? A Commentary. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 6(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v6i1.137001
Due, B. L. (2023b). Interspecies intercorporeality and mediated haptic sociality: Distributing perception with a guide dog. Visual Studies, 38(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1472586X.2021.1951620
Due, B. L. (2023c). Ocularcentric Participation Frameworks: Dealing with a blind member’s perspective. In P. Haddington, T. Eilittä, A. Kamunen, L. Kohonen-Aho, T. Oittinen, L. Rautiainen, & A. Vatanen (Eds.), Ethnomethodological Conversation Analysis in Motion: Emerging Methods and new technologies. (pp. 63–82). Routledge.
Due, B. L. (2023d). Situated socio-material assemblages: Assemmethodology in the making. Human Communication Research, hqad031. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqad031
Due, B. L. (2024a). An ethnomethodological misreading of Deleuze. Towards Post-praxiology? New Developments in Ethnomethodology: Seoul Workshop. Provocations in and For Ethnomethodology., 1–22.
Due, B. L. (2024b). The matter of math: Guiding the blind to touch the Pythagorean theorem. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 45, 100792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2023.100792
Due, B. L. (2024c). The practical accomplishment of living with visual impairment: An EM/CA approach. In B. L. Due (Ed.), The Practical Accomplishment of Everyday Activities Without Sight (pp. 1–26). Routledge.
Due, B. L. (forth.). The consequentiality of sticky ham salad: A post-praxiological study of visually impaired people’s sensory experiences of food items. In W. Gibson, N. Ruiz-Junco, & D. V. Lehn (Eds.), Sensing life: The social organisation of the senses in interaction. Routledge.
Due, B. L., & Lange, S. B. (2018). Semiotic resources for navigation: A video ethnographic study of blind people’s uses of the white cane and a guide dog for navigating in urban areas. Semiotica, 2018(222), 287–312. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2016-0196
Due, B. L., & Lüchow, L. (2023). The Intelligibility of Haptic Perception in Instructional Sequences: When Visually Impaired People Achieve Object Understanding. Human Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-023-09664-8
Due, B. L., Sakaida, R., Nisisawa, H. Y., & Minami, Y. (2024). From embodied scanning to tactile inspections: When visually impaired persons exhibit object understanding. In B. L. Due (Ed.), The Practical Accomplishment of Everyday Activities Without Sight (pp. 154–180). Routledge.
Enfield, N. J., & Kockelman, P. (2017). Distributed Agency. Oxford University Press.
Gardner, R. (2015). Summons Turns: The Business of Securing a Turn in Busy Classrooms. In C. J. Jenks & P. Seedhouse (Eds.), International Perspectives on ELT Classroom Interaction (pp. 28–48). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137340733_3
Garfinkel, H. (2021). Ethnomethodological Misreading of Aron Gurwitsch on the Phenomenal Field: Sociology 271, UCLA 4/26/93. Human Studies, 44(1), 19–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-020-09566-z
Garfinkel, H. (2022). Harold Garfinkel: Studies of Work in the Sciences (M. E. Lynch, Ed.). Routledge.
Giangreco, M. F., Doyle, M. B., & Suter, J. C. (2014). Teacher Assistants in Inclusive Classrooms. In The SAGE Handbook of Special Education: Two Volume Set. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282236
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional Vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100
Goodwin, C. (2000a). Action and Embodiment Within Situated Human Interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489–1522.
Goodwin, C. (2000b). Practices of Color Classification. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327884MCA0701&2_03
Goodwin, C. (2007). Participation, Stance and Affect in the Organization of Activities. Discourse and Society, 18(1), 53–74.
Goodwin, C. (2017). Co-Operative Action. Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin, C. (2018). Co-operative action. Cambridge University Press.
Greiffenhagen, C. (2012). Making rounds: The routine work of the teacher during collaborative learning with computers. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(1), 11–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9134-8
Gurwitsch, A. (1964). The Field of Consciousness. Duquesne University Press.
Herold, F., & Dandolo, J. (2009). Including visually impaired students in physical education lessons: A case study of teacher and pupil experiences. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 27(1), 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264619608097744
Hirvonen, M. I. (2024). Guided by the blind: Discovering the competences of visually impaired co-authors in the practice of collaborative audio-description. In The Practical Accomplishment of Everyday Activities Without Sight. Routledge.
Jakonen, T. (2020). Professional Embodiment: Walking, Re-engagement of Desk Interactions, and Provision of Instruction during Classroom Rounds. Applied Linguistics, 41(2), 161–184. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy034
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Gene H. Lerner (Ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Jones, N., Bartlett, H. E., & Cooke, R. (2019). An analysis of the impact of visual impairment on activities of daily living and vision-related quality of life in a visually impaired adult population. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 37(1), 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264619618814071
Kendrick, K. H., & Drew, P. (2016). Recruitment: Offers, Requests, and the Organization of Assistance in Interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1126436
Koole, T. (2010). Displays of Epistemic Access: Student Responses to Teacher Explanations. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 43(2), 183–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351811003737846
Koole, T., & Elbers, E. (2014). Responsiveness in teacher explanations: A conversation analytical perspective on scaffolding. Linguistics and Education, 26, 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.02.001
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation (1ST edition). Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action Formation and Ascription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 103–130). Wiley-Blackwell.
Lüchow, L., Due, B. L., & Nielsen, A. M. R. (2023). Smartphone tooling: Achieving perception by positioning a smartphone for object scanning. In People, Technology, and Social Organization (pp. 250–273). Routledge.
Luff, P., Hindmarsh, J., & Heath, C. (2000). Workplace studies. Cambridge University Press.
Majlesi, A. R. (2018). Instructed Vision: Navigating Grammatical Rules by Using Landmarks for Linguistic Structures in Corrective Feedback Sequences. The Modern Language Journal, 102, 11–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12452
Markee, N. (2005). The Organization of Off-task Talk in Second Language Classrooms. In K. Richards & P. Seedhouse (Eds.), Applying Conversation Analysis (pp. 197–213). Palgrave Macmillan.
Mondada, L. (2016). Conventions for Multimodal Transcription. https://franzoesistik.philhist.unibas.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/franzoesistik/mondada_multimodal_conventions.pdf
Mondémé, C. (2020). La socialité interspécifique: Une analyse multimodale des interactions homme-chien. Lambert-Lucas.
Morash, V., & Mckerracher, A. (2014). The Relationship between Tactile Graphics and Mathematics for Students with Visual Impairments. Terra Haptica, 4, 13–22.
Moriña, A. (2017). Inclusive education in higher education: Challenges and opportunities. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 32(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2016.1254964
Nevile, M., Haddington, P., Heinemann, T., & Rauniomaa, M. (Eds.). (2014). Interacting with Objects: Language, materiality, and social activity. John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://benjamins.com/#catalog/books/z.186/main
Nilsson, E., & Olaison, A. (2022). Persuasion in practice: Managing diverging stances in needs assessment meetings with older couples living with dementia. Qualitative Social Work, 21(6), 1123–1146. https://doi.org/10.1177/14733250221124213
Österholm, J. H., & Samuelsson, C. (2015). Orally positioning persons with dementia in assessment meetings. Ageing and Society, 35(2), 367–388. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X13000755
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Pursuing a response. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.): Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis. (pp. 152–163). Cambridge University Press.
Radford, J., Blatchford, P., & Webster, R. (2011). Opening up and closing down: How teachers and TAs manage turn-taking, topic and repair in mathematics lessons. Learning and Instruction, 21(5), 625–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.01.004
Rapp, D. W., & Rapp, A. J. (1992). A Survey of the Current Status of Visually Impaired Students in Secondary Mathematics. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 86(2), 115–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X9208600205
Raudaskoski, P. (2021). Discourse studies and the material turn: From representation (facts) to participation (concerns). Zeitschrift Für Diskursforschung, 2021(2), 244–269.
Raudaskoski, P. (2023). Ethnomethodological conversation analysis and the study of assemblages. Frontiers in Sociology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2023.1206512
Relieu, M. (2024). The production and reception of assistance proposals between pedestrians and visually impaired persons during a course in locomotion and orientation. In B. L. Due (Ed.), The Practical Accomplishment of Everyday Activities Without Sight. Routledge.
Reyes-Cruz, G., Fischer, J. E., & Reeves, S. (2022). Demonstrating Interaction: The Case of Assistive Technology. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1145/3514236
Rosenblum, L. P., Ristvey, J., & Hospitál, L. (2019). Supporting Elementary School Students with Visual Impairments in Science Classes. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 113(1), 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X19833801
Sacks, H. L., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.
Samuelsson, C., Österholm, J. H., & Olaison, A. (2015). Orally Positioning Older People in Assessment Meetings. Educational Gerontology, 41(11), 767–785. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2015.1039470
Sandersen, J. H. E., Toft, T. L. W., Due, B. L., & Juul, H. (2022). Unge med blindheds brug og oplevelse af elektroniske punktnotatapparater (p. 74).
Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in Conversational Openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6), 1075–1095. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030
Schegloff, E. A. (1984). On questions and ambiguities in conversation. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action. Studies in conversation analysis, studies in emotion and social interaction (pp. 28–53). Cambridge University Press.
Sidnell, J., & Enfield, N. J. (2017). Deixis and the Interactional Foundations of Reference. In Y. Huang (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of pragmatics (First edition, pp. 217–239). Oxford University Press.
Simone, M., & Galatolo, R. (2020). Climbing as a pair: Instructions and instructed body movements in indoor climbing with visually impaired athletes. Journal of Pragmatics, 155, 286–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.09.008
Simone, M., & Galatolo, R. (2021). Timing and Prosody of Lexical Repetition: How Repeated Instructions Assist Visually Impaired Athletes’ Navigation in Sport Climbing. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(4), 397–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2021.1974742
Simone, M., & Galatolo, R. (2023). The situated deployment of the Italian presentative (e) hai. . . , ‘(And) you have. . .’ Within routinized multimodal Gestalts in route mapping with visually impaired climbers. Discourse Studies, 25(1), 89–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456221126320
Smith, D. W., & Smothers, S. M. (2012). The Role and Characteristics of Tactile Graphics in Secondary Mathematics and Science Textbooks in Braille. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 106(9), 543–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1210600905
Stivers, T., & Robinson, J. D. (2006). A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society, 35(3), 367–392. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060179
Stribling, P., & Rae, J. (2010). Interactional analysis of scaffolding in a mathematical task in ASD. In H. Gardner & M. A. Forrester (Eds.), Analysing interactions in childhood: Insights from conversation analysis (pp. 185–207). Wiley-Blackwell.
Tanner, M. (2014). Lärarens väg genom klassrummet—Lärande och skriftspråkande i bänkinteraktioner på mellanstadiet (Classroom Trajectories of Teaching, Learning and Literacy. Teacher- Student Desk Interaction in the Middle Years). Karlstad University Studies. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-31840
Tegler, H., Demmelmaier, I., Johansson, M. B., & Norén, N. (2020). Creating a response space in multiparty classroom settings for students using eye-gaze accessed speech-generating devices. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2020.1811758
University of Copenhagen. (2022). Data Management Policy. https://hum.ku.dk/forskning/datamanagement/Data_management_policy.pdf
Vincenzi, B., Taylor, A. S., & Stumpf, S. (2021). Interdependence in Action: People with Visual Impairments and their Guides Co-constituting Common Spaces. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449143
Vom Lehn, D. (2010). Discovering ‘Experience-ables’: Socially including visually impaired people in art museums. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(7–8), 749–769. https://doi.org/10.1080/02672571003780155
Wiggins, S., & Potter, J. (2003). Attitudes and evaluative practices: Category vs. item and subjective vs. objective constructions in everyday food assessments. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42(4), 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466603322595257
Wilkinson, R., Rae, J., & Rasmussen, G. (Eds.). (2020). Atypical Interaction: The Impact of Communicative Impairments within Everyday Talk. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28799-3
Markee, Numa (2005): The Organization of Off-task Talk in Second Language Classrooms. In: Keith Richards and Paul Seedhouse (red.), “Applying Conversation Analysis”, p. 197-287. New York : Palgrave Macmillan
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Author and Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
We follow the Budapest Open Access Initiative's definition of Open Access.
The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions.
The journal allows software/spiders to automatically crawl the journal content (also known as text mining)
The journal provides article level metadata to DOAJ
The journal allows readers to read, download, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of its articles and allow readers to use them for any other lawful purpose.
