Practice Theory

This section covers the terms practice and practice theory as ways of understanding (1996)

these views complement each other, and using both views expands the understanding of the concept and its content. Following this, practice architecture is discussed; practice architecture has been used to structure and make sense of the practices studied, looking through the lens of sayings, doings, and relatings.

Practice theory is a sociological theory that allows for the analysis of human action practice, and this is key to understanding and explaining social phenomena. A practice comprises means and competencies and offers a language for reflection and a perspective for

embedded in the interactions between students and digital tools in given contexts, it is

possible to gain a language for reflection. An introduction to defining the term social practice is as follows. The social practice comprises socially structured, and socially structuring, patterns, and resources that form the core of everyday life activity . . . [that is,] ways of understanding and doing things in the world (Thorne, 2013, p. 193). Practice theories have become an alternative way of understanding the social world that differs from social theories that view action as rooted either in individual or collective norms and values (Reckwitz, 2002;

Schatzki, 1996). According to Reckwitz, there are three ways of explaining action and social order, one of which is practice theory. The other two are the purpose-oriented theory of action, which has an individual purpose, and norm-oriented theory of action, which focuses on collective norms and values. However, Reckwitz (2002) also stated that these two ways of understanding action and social order dismiss the tacit part of knowledge, and this is

problematic because tacit knowledge enables a symbolic organization of the reality of which we are a part.

Practices are ways of organizing ordinary actions that put people in places and positions. Reckwitz (2002) stated that a practice is a routinized way in which bodies are moved, objects are handled, subjects are treated, things are described, and the world is

understood (p. 250). Like most actions, practices are performed as part of conventional ways of doing things. Even if the participants in a practice are not aware that their actions are a part of a practice, when these ordinary activities become identifiable regimes of activity, they are called practices. This is closely related to Gee s definition of social practices, defined in Chapter 2.1 as activities involving ways of talking and listening, acting, and interacting, thinking, and believing, and feeling and valuing (Gee 2010, p. 17).

Practices are performances that repeatedly happen, in a routinized way, among the participants in given contexts, such as using specific digital tools in a specific context with a certain social interaction. Some practices last for a long time, whereas others last for a shorter period. Because they are culturally conditioned and understood by the participants in a

particular practice, it may sound like anything can be a practice. This is not the case. To be a practice, something must be structured with a pattern (Thorne, 2013). When the practice is put into play, it stabilizes and changes at the same time. As practice theory can give access to a language for reflecting, analyzing the empirical data, and assessing what makes out the students digital literacies through its lens, it facilitates defining, changing, or enhancing the practices.

Reckwitz (2002) set the following components as part of routinized behavior at the core of a practice. First, the body and its activities and actions form one component. The body is not only an instrument for the agent(s) but also knows how to perform routinized actions, such as handling objects. Second, the mind and mental activities have different know-hows because some specific mental activities are part of different practices. Third, things and their use as social practices often comprise both agents (body and mind) and objects in a routinized relationship. Fourth, discourse comprises bodily patterns, routinized mental activities,

motivations, and objects. Fifth, in the structure/process, social fields are structured by routines, and to some extent, the social order is social reproduction. Finally, cultural knowledge is a way of understanding and giving meaning to objects and humans. All the mentioned components are what make a social practice (Reckwitz, 2002). I understand

to elaborate on the sayings and doings that Schatzki (1996) identified as making up practices. Reckwitz (2002) also underlined that the practice should be understandable to the agent or the agents who are the carriers, and also to the potential observer (at least within the same culture) (p. 250).

Schatzki (1996) proposed two different practices as conceptual aids: dispersed and integrative practices. Dispersed practices are overarching parts of social actions, such as following rules, explaining, and questioning (Schatzki, 1996). Integrative practices occur in special spheres of human interaction (Schatzki, 1996). The practices in this research project are integrative because they all include one special object or tool in the school project at hand.

They are also the type of integrative practice that an excursion in social studies creates. The same is true when studying group work in the classroom. As the methodology, the researcher and the camera have become such prominent parts of the social practices that I consider the methodology another component of an integrated practice. One could argue that these are different dispersed practices together, creating an integrated practice. Schatzki specified that dispersed practices might change when they meet other dispersed practices within an

integrative practice. I believe that this describes the practices I have observed. There are different traits of the practices that have dispersive traits and others that have integrated traits.

These limits are difficult to set, but they are important to distinguish in a research project.

They are also closely related to the question of whether practices are dispersive or integrative.

Like all humans, all the students in this study participated in different practices simultaneously. Within R

components that make up the practices are useful to consider. The integrative perspective on

practice theory clearly shows the , and, as Schatzki (1996) clarified, the agent is at the center

method of dividing integrated and dispersive practices is applied when interpreting the empirical data.