The anthropology of didactics and learning

The anthropology of didactics and learning

Definitions of learning (and teaching) are sometimes made on the basis of references outside
and above the immediate classroom event. The didactic questions phrased in terms of what,
How and Why (A.a, 1987; Selander, 2010:202). The curriculum, policies and the various sub-
stances when these issues are preserved and problematized. At the same time, there is the
school's reality in the classrooms, but more as a recipient of this problem. This reality can be
the starting point of a self-sustaining reflection emanating from teachers and students and their
actual situation. This is approaching it as A. ... (1987) the terms "implementing the field" where
I want to continue the discussion. How do we get a different perspective on What, How and
Why based on teachers ' practice? Are these questions at all realistic to ask (in practice) and
what answers can you expect? What is an example for teaching science content from a student's
perspective? And how is the issue from the teacher's perspective in the practical stage?

When we partake of the early German discussion of education (Blankertz, 1987), I see that my
interest like the perspective called the learning theory (teaching theoretical) model (and to some
extent the cultural studies) which mean that one should take into account the many factors that
affect the teaching process. The reasoning is influenced by a learning psychological perspec-
tive, control structures and marked by the spirit of the times. In the debate held in this text, I
am more restricted to the internal factors in implementing field and Blankertz (1987:35) obser-
vation that the didactic problems are complex. Here the term "didactic intuition" Central (kroks-
mark, 1997) in thinking about teachers ' work and what I perceived as intelligent improvisations
(Hultman, 2001).

Didactics

The concept of education is given a broad definition and is based on the debate on the education
(Bengtsson, 1997; Dahlgren, 1990; S & Swedner, 2000). The term education is derived to Ratke
(Blankertz, 1987) in 1612 that presented a normative didactics with instructions for content and
techniques, then the Comenius (1999) who saw it as a theory of the art of teaching. Since
Herbart with a normative approach where education was seen as a part of education. He saw
the psychology as a guideline for the selection of methods, but also considered that there were
limits to the use of scientific knowledge. I would like to refer to the Hook marks (1997) study
of the concept of "learning" and its ambiguity in different countries and cultures where he gives
the following definition of didactics, "... the term didactic (s) for ' the art and science of teaching
'" (p. 3).

Lundgren (1986 in Bengtsson, 1997) says that: "educational research is why the research whose
interest is to understand and explain how teaching entails and how it affects the individual's
learning, thinking, memory and oblivion, that is to say, the relationship between teaching and
learning ".

Didactic research therefore involves the learning according to some researchers. But one can
discuss various forms of education. A normative where such as interested in rules for how
teaching should be implemented, a descriptive which conducts empirical studies of actual teach-
ing, a metadidaktisk with a philosophical orientation that reflects on the basics for the previ-
ously mentioned. Added to this is a theoretical-critical pedagogy that can both be scientific and

1 SocArxiv, 2018-05-23
The anthropology of didactics and learning

practical theories of teachers and self-reflection. It should also be noted that education is some-
thing practical, the art of teaching. Practical didactics can both refer to a skill acquired through
training or as a result of natural talent.

The practical forms of learning can be the subject of scientific research. It may therefore be
interested in the normative side of the methodology, but you may also be interested in research-
ing practice, and elucidate how teachers work and learn.

One can perceive the different interests and specializations of learning both in General-as teach-
ing. The didactic interest can apply to Swedish, literature, history, mathematics and science.
Added to this is the allmändidaktiska interests in the form of research on teachers ' work and
classroom interaction. This also includes the area of knowledge creation and learning that em-
phasizes participants ' work and learning in the classroom.

In the latter case, interest is directed towards the interaction (triad) L (teacher) to E (students)-
Ä (subject), in the classroom, and research can take an unprejudiced approach, and with the
help of actors (teachers, students) and the theories seek a dilated understanding. Participants '
picture of what is happening and the way they think about and interpret what is happening,
becomes important. This means maybe we can add a dimension to the debate on "education" as
it is portrayed in the practical execution?

According to some definitions of learning you can equate the term with teaching doctrine, often
with a normative meaning. From a more practical perspective, situated in focus and you see
more to teaching and learning, so that it actually looks like in practice. And then you would be
able to give the classic issues a different meaning according to the following:

HOW-how is teaching? What strategies are implementing teacher?

What – what students learn? What content is taught?

WHY – how justified what is happening?

One can approach the questions relative to the triad, with particular interest in the subject or
relations or, with my interest, the relationship between teacher and student in context, be it
dominating?

Education is not something that teachers are working with or as (only) is taught in teacher
training, but it becomes a way to perceive what is happening in the classroom. It should be
interesting to use education with this meaning and this text examines the idea? The researchers
' task would be to take their starting point in teachers and students to understand how they think,
reason and act in-situ. And this has previously been highlighted in areas such as ram factor

2 SocArxiv, 2018-05-23
The anthropology of didactics and learning

theory (Lundgren, 1984), but an additional contribution would be to bring in the actors ' ap-
proach to understanding how the system be made to work.

In our interest focuses on triad, in context. Others may be interested in the substance's structure
without seeing a link to what happens in class. Still others might be interested in teaching and
how students learn science i.e. the interaction.

Didactic triads as metaphors for the teaching pattern

Sometimes the images and metaphors can be a great way to illustrate it, such as is done in the
classroom, or how you perceive teaching (normative or empirical). I have previously taken ad-
vantage of the opportunity, in the form of didactic triads, shown in Figure 1 below, on various
occasions, e.g. in connection with research in mathematics education (Hultman et al, 1976).
And recently, Oerback (2008) used the didactic triangle in a discussion of education and did-
aktisering. I would like to illustrate my interest, in this text, using different metaphors for in-
struction, Figure 2, in which we start from the basic pattern in Figure 1. I work with four types
of approach to the teaching and learning environment. These models/metaphors related to the
current discussion on the different learning theories but to accurately depict these: förmedling-
spedagogik, constructivism, situated learning and the apprentices.

In Figure 1 also, theory suggests A, B and C, the different possible relationships and interactions
that can be of use when it creates the various metaphors. In, for example, theory (A) illustrates
a situation where the interaction is weak or missing, B is the interaction between the teacher
and student's strong and in C is the teacher and the topic that dominates. We believe that even
the theory (A) could be of use and highlight the aspects of teaching where the classroom is
characterized by deficiencies in the interaction.

Figure 1: the didactic triad in context (context). Figures showing (micro grafs) theory (A) to

3 SocArxiv, 2018-05-23
The anthropology of didactics and learning

(C) that illustrates how triad can be used to discuss relations with both strong, weak and loose
connections. These opportunities are used in Figure 2.

Figure 2 illustrates the different didactic models and metaphors and in model 4 focuses the
student's situation and the learning environment that surrounds him/her. But we can, of course,
in a similar way, illustrating the teacher's situation but then such as metaphor, four a different
appearance. All four of the metaphors used in most situations.

My interest, in this text, is primarily focused on the fourth model/metaphor because we have
our own, and others ', research found that the metaphor highlights the aspects not
medvetandegjorts so clearly before (see below). When we analyse the interaction between
teachers and students (La Grange, Schoultz, Hultman and B, 2011) we see how different ap-
proaches and patterns (metaphors) is illustrated in various lektionssekvenser and we have de-
veloped a Codebook to capture what happens in classroom. Analyses based on video record-
ings, stimulated recall interviews, transcripts and contextual interviews (Hultman, 2001) with
teachers and students.

Oerback (2008) argues that we should interest us for the difference that may arise between
didactic metaphors (she uses the term theory) and actual teaching. In this text I would like to
see the various metaphors to reflect the characteristics of the different teaching situations. Re-
search can then use their experience and empirical evidence to pronounce on didactics. She said
further that the difference between teaching and general education is that the former implies
that it is the teacher who select content or that it has been chosen for the teacher. In the allmän-
didaktiska case, created a more general interest in the skills that are important in most situations.
She brings forward the importance of considering students ' professional ' (comparable to
Libergs (2010) position below) and co-creator of the subject content is realized. She argues that
the teacher must accept and work with the student's comprehension of the contents otherwise

4 SocArxiv, 2018-05-23
The anthropology of didactics and learning

does not create the desired meeting, in the contents (Figure 1 above), between teacher and stu-
dent. She believes that there is a risk of using the concept of education as it is strongly tied to
the teacher. And then miss one realization of the learner as an active participant in the creation
of subject and ämnesdidaktiken. This is similar to the difference between the metaphor of a
(Figure 2) and four, so we opted for the illustrations. She sees this as an opportunity to find a
bridge between learning and teaching. She wonders where the discipline and the topic exists?
And respond to it varies, there are in klassrumsdikussionen, in the teacher's statements, in text-
books, in the selection of the books and in the tools and methods used in the analysis. The
subject becomes part of the context, and is created in the communication.

Here, we would also refer to Carlgren & Marton (2001) and their discussion on the item. And
a similar discussion of Lampert (2001) with a model of "Teaching Practice" which draws atten-
tion to the teacher and the students as actors in a complex educational learning environment,
the didactic triangle.

Teachers ' work and learning/didactics

In a "review", made of Grimmett & MacKinnon (1992), particular attention teachers ' voca-
tional skills and its relationship to teacher training. The authors tone down the idea of teaching
("discipline of teaching") as an academic subject, but is interested in more for teaching as art or
craftsmanship. A central question becomes:

How do teachers orchestrate the experiences of learning so that students find the engagement,
attractive and stimulating?

Those interested in particular of "the craft of teaching" and the alternate form of knowledge as
it is about. They see two specializations; from applied science to practice development. The
first assumes that the research control practice; that research affects educational design; to teach
education and that this applied during training periods. The second assumes that it is knowledge
that is generated with the teacher by reflection over time that will influence the research. The
research is based on the current practice and creates, through the analysis of it, understanding
that can be reformulated to either interchange bar knowledge or form a basis for reflection.

In this context it talks about craftsmanship, "craft knowledge", as the teacher's attempts to un-
derstand the everyday mysticism. The teacher do this from their own perspective as "the stu-
dents" (compare Hultman, 2008). By the situation created an informal network which provides
a basis for a knowledge base. You talk about contextual knowledge and to the informal has
priority. The traditional view of "craft" is that knowledge is transmitted or occur through "trans-
mission" but Grimmett & MacKinnon of "situated knowledge" as an alternative. This is in line
with the recent research and theory as situated and sociocultural. It also connects to the Swedish
debate about teachers ' professional items that focus on learning processes and the understand-
ing of the dimension (Carlgren & Marton, 2001).

In an attempt to understand the "craft knowledge" will Grimmett into & intuition, MacKinnon
empathy etc and the etc is all about "knowing" (instead of telling). The advances the concept
that rolling planning, work as passion and presents a criticism of teachers ' professionalization.

5 SocArxiv, 2018-05-23
The anthropology of didactics and learning

In a discussion on "the art of teaching to become a teacher", they take up the teacher learns to
create the situation. And they point out when the informal side of life at school.

Grimmett & MacKinnon concludes his overview with some reflections on how the craft
knowledge can be used. One idea is to try and see and observe classroom work anthropologi-
cally, which among other things means that the traditional concept of class being dissolved.
Taking the example of the teacher training and believes that the candidate, the teacher and
teacher trainer teaches and reflect together, side-by-side or "at one other's elbow". We learn
how to teach by doing. Science (books) is pitted against sense (at the elbow). They conclude
with a thought that their research review is actually an oxymoron an oxymoron you cannot learn
"craft knowledge" in books!

The position of Grimmett & MacKinnon chooses to formulate similar to practical and method-
ological knowledge of the teacher, therefore, when craftsmanship. They show that its creation
is something that can be considered contextually and situation bound.

Didactics, what happens in the classroom

The research on the learning process in schools and similar organizations that are relevant to
the teacher's development are few in number. Huberman (1983) points to the complexity of
teachers ' work (see also Jackson, 1990) and Eraut (2002) points out that we lack adequate
analyses of the complexity productivity in teachers ' work and that teachers ' knowledge differs
from other professions by the byg gives up their knowledge through a number of episodes from
a busy and overcrowded environment. Ainley and Luntley (2007) points out that an experienced
teachers have the opportunity to act in a more efficient manner. The ability to see and interpret
and evaluate classroom situations was crucial for the quality of teaching quality. The experi-
enced teacher who seems to see better and more often, to evaluate the works completely auto-
matically has attracted the attention of many researchers (Berliner, 1994; Jack & kroksmark,
2004; Kroksmark, 1997; Krull, Oras & Sisask, 2007). The develop ment of these abilities, from
novice to expert, takes many years and requires experience, purity and dedication (Dreyfus
1986; yfus & Dre, for a critical reflection see Bengtsson, 2010). Current results within psychol-
ogy and neurophysiology explains the difference between ex perten and catechumen's way to
see and assess via the explicit (conscious thinking) and the implicit (unconscious recognition)
system that is used both to see, understand and judge the world and to learn to recognize situa-
tions and attributable events on an automatic, intuitive and uncontrolled way (B, 2008).

We have in the earlier classroom studies found that the teacher puts a lot of effort to create good
relationships into the classroom (Wade, 2010) and context for teaching. He/she care about the
students and trying to create safe environments (Berg, L. & Eriksson, 2007). However, it was
able to hide when the teachers in their conversations and explanations for the observed spawn-
ing tions treated the subject and didactic questions (Schoultz, Hultman & Löfgren, 2011). Then
the teacher working with highly controlled materials e.g. WAIT, this seems to be extra clear
(Schoultz, Hult to & lad, 2005).

We therefore question, what is it that controls the actions of the teacher in classroom practice?,
how much is "tacit knowledge" and experience of students, the subject and the classroom? Ac-
cording to Hultman, the teacher can be considered as an operator that creates meaning in con-
text. She/he spends most of his working time with the students and the teacher's learning can
be seen as a form of apprenticeships, apprentice-in-context (Hultman, 2008, cf. Lave, 1993).
Teachers need calm and insightful conversations with the student but are forced frequently to

6 SocArxiv, 2018-05-23
The anthropology of didactics and learning

prompt immediate action (Eraut, 2002). An interesting question then becomes how teachers can
teach and the didactic considerations as they do in such situations (freely after Weick, 1985).

Around the school's science subjects, as well as other topics, there has emerged a up way ning
specific practices that can be considered as subcultures (Aikenhead, 1996; Bruner, 1996). The
school's science education is such a social and cultural activity that is mel lan the professional
knowledge cultures and the mundane (Andrée 2007). Learning in natural science is about to
become involved in activities offering a scientific way of thinking and acting.

In a previous study, we have followed the students of primary schools participating in the so-
called NTA project. The focus has been on science teaching, so that it is carried out within the
framework of this project, as a natural experiment, and we've studied and analyzed what hap-
pens in classrooms. The results of these studies show the need for the active involvement of
both teachers and students. By the teacher, the learner the opportunity to learn and understand
science and then not only factual knowledge but also pro cesskunskap and way to see, discover
and describe. There is a need for a teacher who is active, knowledgeable and caring and who
leads the student to new knowledge. The outcome of the work in the classroom depends on the
combination of students, teachers and materials. The classroom situation, frames and the teach-
er's own interpretation of the didactic concept, however, that the performance in the classroom
looks different than the very basic concepts. Often there will be a lot of "awareness" and a bit
of reflection and this leads to knowledge is empirical, and that pupil learns to draw general
conclusions. The student may not be able to develop tools such as "viewing" a more scientific
observation. An important part of the teacher's work seems to be to establish context for stu-
dents that provides motivation and desire to learn.
Education as situated practice or anthropological pedagogy
The didactic questions were originally and are still produced and anchored outside the class-
room, and they may not be able to be answered in the same way when we change level. But I
think it makes sense to try to discuss learning from a classroom perspective. And with a partic-
ular interest in the dynamic there is. In this way, it should be possible to reflect on how content
(What) is transferred and adapted to what is happening in class. The teacher's interpretation of
curriculum, lesson planning and teaching material undergoes a transformation in the transition
between the teacher's planning and the actual outcome for a given lesson. And how this is real-
ized in the individual students are an important research issue.
Selander (2010:212) is looking at this when he states that: "the understanding of the didactic
aspects are developed with the concrete works in a practice which has responsibility for other
people's learning". And it is including this page I would like to draw attention to. He also takes
up the didactic design which means that the teacher, today, have a greater responsibility to
interpret such as curriculum, i.e. a responsibility to design education. Selander points out that
this also applies to the pupil. My interest is how this looks in-situ, which i discuss in this text.
As Selander, is an interest in a better understanding of learning and learning environments and
for what the Hook land (1997) term didactic intuition.
But also a better understanding of the Labi (2010:221) called the student's agency that is, stu-
dents are also (as the teacher) conscious actors who make their choices, e.g. as regards content.
That is to say, they're also educational actors. In a study of Nuthall (2005) will be shown to
students at the same time are included in three interacting contexts: the official teacher-led, they
partly hidden companion relationships and personal and private (attitude, family, home envi-
ronment). He argues that much of the research is based on a lack of understanding of students '
lives in the classroom (see also Eraut, 2002). The teacher "hear" not individual students, is one

7 SocArxiv, 2018-05-23
The anthropology of didactics and learning

of the insights, but are directed to that which is visible, which is reminiscent of the phenomenon
of "small talk" as noted in a study in the science classroom (Schoultz, Hultman & lad, 2005).
In a study of Timperley & Alton-Lee (2008) reported similar findings:
At the heart of the problems teachers face in the classroom is knowing what is going on in the
mind of the student's ... This poses a problem for teachers and researchers because what is going
on in a child's mind is essentially unobservable, and many of the clues teachers take to be a
signal of what is occurring in students ' minds are unreliable or misleading. (p. 338).
[a teacher] ... I would have liked to thought that I was tuned in to what was happening in the
class ... I just didn't know ... (p. 338)
This may seem a little excessive then we also know that experienced teachers acquire different
strategies to increase their knowledge of the invisible dimension of the work together with the
students. Examples of such strategies is mikrodialoger, "eye-in-the-neck" and listen to the stu-
dents ' calls and their impressions from the classroom environment. But as Hook land (1997)
noted, it is very invisible and intangible but even so there is a learning and sometimes an un-
conscious/conscious knowledge that I sought to capture in the metaphor intelligent improvisa-
tion (Hultman, 2001).
It connects me to Labi (2010:231) which mean that the teacher is akin to an ethnographer, which
would mean that he/she in parallel with their teachers ' achievement study their own and others
' teaching. We have also developed both empirically and methodically in some works (Hultman,
2001, 2008; Schoultz, Hultman, lad, 2005) where we connect to the early etnometodologin and
Garfinkels works (Garfinkel, 1967). This approach encourages reflections on the methods peo-
ple use to create an understandable reality, what they are doing to create meaning and for man-
aging a complex environment and to this creation and management is part of a knowledge for-
mation process.
To get an idea of this, studies, with this approach, be done. But already reported empiricism
can shed light on the thoughts of a local education that I perceive to be situated and the term
"anthropological education" as its definition is based on what is happening in practice. We get
to know the field sensitive methods such as participant observation and video recordings as
well as an approach derived from anthropology and ethnomethodology.
Some classroom research and some research on teachers ' work should be used. Observational
studies and samtalsbaserade interviews (Hultman, 2001) gives us the impressions and experi-
ences that can contribute to the descriptions and interpretations. Why is teaching as it gets? We
know that many factors influence such as frames and actors ' behaviour (see the Swedish frame-
work factor theory, Lundgren, 1984). It is in the classroom dynamic that the didactic questions,
but we can take some of the answer because it becomes woven into the ongoing activities. There
is no written document that can be viewed as planning documents relating to an intended and
desirable outcomes. The definition and discussion of learning can be based on the local situa-
tion.
The choice of content and methodology are made in-situ even though the elections are already
planned. It is seen in the actual teaching is a compromise and a combination of the intended and
what is possible. One definition of learning can be given an alternative form.
The anthropological research has an interest in following examples of circumstances that occur
in the classroom:
Different lesson step takes more or less time than planned.
Lessons can not be completed as it should be (based on general didactic starting points).

8 SocArxiv, 2018-05-23
The anthropology of didactics and learning

The interaction between teacher and students will otherwise than expected (W, 2007) and some-
times didactic collapse (kroksmark, 1997).
Interaction, which becomes in any other way, may be a deliberate feature of what is taking place
(not always randomly or by chance).
It was meant, and that perceived by researchers, for example, "as scaffolding" in an analysis of
ZPD (Jadallah et al, 2011:197) can, in fact, be piloting (a frame element theoretical concept) If
you make an alternative interpretation of the poster presented at Jadalla et al. It needed a
knowledge of teachers ' and pupils ' interaction before the episode (the vignette below) and a
feel for how this is realized in the pupil (it may be an example of superficial dedications? How
to understand the term ' pupil taught?):
Teacher: ... Remember we I'd talked about the weatherman and we said that weatherman does
this? What does the weatherman do?
Student 4: Give a ...
Teacher: What does he do when he tells us it's going to be a beautiful weekend?
Student 4: Prediction!
Teacher: Right. You remembered that big word. And what do we do when we predict about the
story?
Student 4: We think about what might happen.
Teacher: Next in the story. Right.
The teacher did not always have the opportunity to take part in students ' chit-chat (Schoultz,
Hultman & lad, 2005), it is invisible and inaudible and can create error learning/collective mis-
understanding between students.
A välutprövat learning materials can operate on completely different way than the intended. In
such a situation there is a designed material while there is a local variation. You could say that
context takes care of the design and change it, a localization or translation and editing (Sahlin
& Wedlin, 2008).
An understanding of how klassrumsdynamiken affects the teacher facilitates the understanding
of how this in turn affects didactics. From a strictly ämnesdidaktiskt point of view, a teacher's
actions seem inappropriate/inaccurate but when the teacher presents its action with reference to
the situation, and students may seem logical.
Reflections on education can be given a different content if we take into account the local stage
in practice. It then becomes not a didactics with flaws. Teachers need to manage two logics and
the planning logic where the official and formal requirements are present and a practical logic
where what happens in class, to a large extent, affect the content (Hultman, 2008).
It is not always possible to implement planning in practice. Another factor is that it is difficult
to obtain clear information on how it is planned, via klassrumsdynamiken, reaches up to eleven.
The latter can in part be studied at video recordings clearly "see" what attention degree different
students. But even then, you can safely "see" how an individual student interact with and receive
the content. In direct interactions between the teacher and student can, with the help of the
transcriptions (see example above), understand the student's situation and ana which learning
that occurred (Nuthall, 2005).
When you perceive learning as a situated practice becomes indents above. In this definition of
"education" focused "practice". Such a theory should provide an understanding of the factors

9 SocArxiv, 2018-05-23
The anthropology of didactics and learning

that influence a teaching situation. These factors are all known circumstances that the teacher,
the pupil, the subject and the situation (school, municipal, country).
The individual teacher can't consciously take account of all factors in advance but must deal
with the situations that arise afterwards. This becomes the teacher's experience of importance.
And much is equal, case-by-case basis, although there are often variations on a theme.
A definition of education thus becomes the choice, the conduct and the circumstances that cre-
ate situations in the classroom and that is the environment that generates the respective inhibits
learning. When, What and How-questions answered from inside. The timing, content and
method is controlled partly by internal circumstances and the decisions the teacher has to take
"on the spot". This can be clearly seen when identifying the didactic process (lektionssekven-
serna) and follow the teacher's plan for the introduction of the lesson and to further implemen-
tation and on to the conclusion of the lesson (La Grange, Schoultz, Hultman & B, 2011). Se-
quence two to four can markedly differ from the first. And the transitions between the sequences
as well.
In this way, we can say that we are back to the original ideas on education as practical teaching
art with all that today. It is no longer only a experiential knowledge without know-how is based
on a deliberate training and a quest for forskningsbasering. At the same time remain
klassrumsdynamiken and a better understanding of the entangled didactics.

References
Aikenhead, G. S. (1996).”Science Education: Border Crossing into the Subculture of
Science”. Studies in Science3Education, Vol 27, pp. 1-52.
Ainley J. & Luntley M. (2007a) Towards an articulation of expert classroom practice.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1127–1138.
Andrée, M. (2007). Den levda läroplanen. Stockholm: HLS förlag .
Arfwedson, G. (1987) Om Blankertz – inledande kommentarer till boken. I Blankertz,
H. Didaktikens teorier och modeller. Stockholm: HLS Förlag.
Bengtsson, J. (2010). Teorier om yrkesutövning och dras praktiska konsekvenser för
lärare. I Hugo, M & Segolsson, M. (Red.) Lärande och bildning i en globaliserad tid.
Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Bengtsson, J. (1997). Didaktiska dimensioner, i Pedagogiskt forskning, årg 2, nr 4, s.
241-261.
Berg, A., Löfgren, R. & Eriksson, I. (2007). Kemiinnehåll i undervisning för nybörjare.
En studie av hur ämnesinnehållet får konkurrera med målet av att få eleverna in-
tresserade av naturvetenskap. Nordina 2 s 146-162.
Berliner, D. C. (1994). Expertise: The wonders of exemplary performance. In J. N.
Mangieri and C. Collins Block (Eds.), Creating powerful thinking in teachers and stu-
dents (pp. 141–186). Ft. Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Blankertz, H. (1987). Didaktikens teorier och modeller. Stockholm: HLS Förlag.
Björklund, L. (2008). Från novis till expert: förtrogenhetskunskap i kognitiv och didaktisk
belysning. Doktorsavhandling FontD : Institutionen för samhälls- och välfärdsstu-
dier Linköpings universitet.
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Carlgren & Marton (2001) Lärare av i morgon. Stockholm: Lärarförbundets förlag.
Comenius, J. A. (1999). Didactica Magna. Stora undervisningsläran. Översättning och in-
ledning: Tomas Kroksmark. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Dahlgren (1990), Undervisningen och det meningsfulla lärandet, Skapande vetande, 1990.
Dreyfus & Dreyfus (1986). Mind over machine. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

10 SocArxiv, 2018-05-23
The anthropology of didactics and learning

Eraut, M. (2002). Menus for Choosy Diners. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice.
Vol. 8, No. 3/4, pp. 371-379
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood-Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-
Hall.
Grimmett & MacKinnon (1992). Craft Knowledge and the Education of Teachers.
Huberman, M. (1983). Recipes for Busy Kitchens. A situational Analysis of routine
knowledge use in schools. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, Vol. 4, No.
4, pp. 478-510.
Hultman, G. Lindgren, K. Nöid, P-E. Stenerhag, L. Wyndhamn, J. & Zanton-Eriksson,
G. (1976). Matematiklärande och elevaktivitet. Ett försök att beskriva, förklara och för-
ändra matematikundervisningen, en studie i en högstadieklass. Linköping: Lärarhögs-
kolan i Linköping, institutionen för pedagogik. Rapport nr 1.
Hultman, G. (2001). Intelligenta improvisationer. Om lärares arbete och kunskapsbildning i
vardagen. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Hultman, G. (2008). Ambiguity as work. Teachers’ knowledge creation in Class-
rooms. New Zeeland Journal of Teachers´work. Vol.5 (inpress)
Jackson, P. W. (1990). Life in classrooms. Colombia University: Teachers Collegues.
Jadallah, M. et al. (2011). Influence of a teacher’s scaffolding moves during child-led
small-group discussions. American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp.
194-230.
Johansson, T. & Kroksmark; T. (2004). Teacher’s intuition-in-action: How teachers ex-
perience action. Reflective Practice, Vol. 5, Nu. 3.
Kroksmark, T. (1997). Teacher intuition-Didactic intuition. Göteborgs universitet: In-
stitutionen för metodik i lärarutbildningen 15.
Krull, E.; Oras, K.; Sisask, S. (2007). Differences in teachers' comments on classroom
events as indicators of their professional development. Teaching and Teacher Edu-
cation, 23(7), 1038 - 1050.
Lampert (2001), Teaching Problems and the Problems of Teaching. New Haven: Yale Uni-
versity Press,
Lave, J. (1993). The practice of learning. In Chaiklin, S. & Lave, J. (Eds.) Understanding
practice. Perspectives on activity and context. Cambridge University press.
Liberg, C. 2010. Den didaktiska reliefen – att vara lärare. I Lundgren, U. P., Säljö, R.
och Liberg, C. (red) Lärande, skola, bildning. Grundbok för lärare. Stockholm: Natur
& Kultur.
Lundgren, U P (1984). Ramfaktorteorins historia. Skeptron. Stockholm.
Löfgren, R., Schoultz, J., Hultman, G. & Björklund, L. (2011). Kommunicera naturve-
tenskap i skolan – exempel från årskurs 3. I Martinsson, Bengt-Göran & Parme-
nius Swärd, Suzanne red. Ämnesdidaktik -- dåtid, nutid och framtid. Bidrag från
femte rikskonferensen i ämnesdidaktik vid Linköpings universitet 26-27 maj
2010. Linköpings universitet.
Nuthall, G. 2005. The cultural myths and realities of classroom teaching and learning?
Teachers College Records Vol 107, No. 5 May, pp. 895-934
Oerback, K. 2008. Didactics and didactisizing. Manus. University of Southern Denmark,
Odense.
Selander, S. 2010. Didaktik – undervisning och lärande.. I Lundgren, U. P., Säljö, R.
och Liberg, C. (red) Lärande, skola, bildning. Grundbok för lärare. Stockholm: Natur
& Kultur.
Schoultz, J. Hultman, G & Lindkvist, M. 2005. Apprentices in context and complex
didactical situations. Pupils´learning in science teaching. Swedish Research
Council, Committee for Educational Science.

11 SocArxiv, 2018-05-23
The anthropology of didactics and learning

Schoultz, J., Hultman, G. & Löfgren, R. (2011). Subject didactics in practice. Hidden in
the process. Manuscript.
Säfström, C.A & Svedner, P.O. (2000). Didaktik – perspektiv och problem. Lund: Student-
litteratur.
Timperley, H. & Alton-Lee, A. (2008). Reframing teacher profesional lerning: an alter-
native policy approach to stregthening valued outcomes for diverse learners. Re-
view of Research in Education, Vol. 32, pp. 328-369.
Wedin, A-S. (2007). Lärares arbete och kunskapsbildning. Linköping: Linköping Studies
in Pedagogic Parctices No.2
Wedin, A-S. (2010). Lärares arbete och kunskap – relationer, undervisning och betyg. Lund:
Studentlitteratur.
Weick, K. E. (1985). Improvisation as a Mindset for Organizational Analysis. In
Weick, K. E. Making Sense of the Organization. Oxford: Blackwell Business.

12 SocArxiv, 2018-05-23