The following text presents a revised and extended version of the public defence of my Ph.D. thesis, which I presented at the Faculty of Social Sciences on 18 th November 2005, Copenhagen University. The thesis applies and develops theoretical perspectives from Science and Technology Studies – especially Actor-Network Theory – on the empirical field of primary education. This field has not prior been approached by these theories. Based on ethnographic field studies the thesis presents and compares what I call spatial (...) imaginaries of interactions of humans and learning materials in a traditional classroom and in a computer lab. The study describes and discusses the forms of knowledge and the forms of presence performed through these socio-material interactions. The study thus contributes a definition of materialities that takes the understanding of technology in education beyond the dominant humanist approach to schooling. (shrink)

Friesen's comparison between classroom practices and digital dissection carries the flaws of treating the digital and non-digital learning materials differently when comparing. This reply paper argues for a symmetric comparison through a focus on the way in which comparability between digital and non-digital learning materials is established by the researcher. It is suggested that such comparison might have brought about a result more favorable for digital technology.

Friesen's comparison between classroom practices and digital dissection carries the flaws of treating the digital and non-digital learning materials differently when comparing. This reply paper argues for a symmetric comparison through a focus on the way in which comparability between digital and non-digital learning materials is established by the researcher. It is suggested that such comparison might have brought about a result more favorable for digital technology.

This response paper begins by countering the contributions of Don Ihde and Robert Rosenberger to this special issue, making its case in existential terms. Then, addressing Darin Barney, these arguments are developed further in aesthetic terms, making use of the “modernist” educational theory of René Arcilla. This response article concludes by returning to the realm of the educational with the help of Albert Borgmann's and Estrid Sørensen's feedback.