Based on practice theory, the Graduate School "Subject-Specific Learning and Interaction in Elementary School" (Fachlichkeit und Interaktionspraxis im Grundschulunterricht, INTERFACH) understands classroom activities as "nexus of doings and sayings” (Schatzki, 1996, p. 89). This brings into view the empirically observable connection of interrelated behaviors (Breidenstein, 2021, p. 936), which is not limited to verbal language references. Instead, the bodies, material things, and spatial arrangement can also be studied as elements of the social enactment reality of teaching and learning (Schmidt, 2018). In this way, we consider school learning as an interplay of practices of interaction organization, structuring, and task processing. With the practices of interaction organization, not only the difference of the interaction roles 'teacher' and 'student' is constituted, but also 'teaching' as mediation and acquisition. At the same time, the general features of interactional order among participants characterize the performance and direct it towards the stabilization, and maintenance of interaction (Vanderstraeten, 2001). Practices of structuring, with which the teacher selects and tailors a topic or problem for teaching, contour the subject matter. Usually, the content of the lesson is presented to the students in the form of tasks. Task processing practices are characterized by routine and lean towards pragmatics and efficiency (Breidenstein & Rademacher, 2017; Lipowsky & Lotz, 2015). With regard to subject-specific learning, two central questions arise. First, it must be clarified how different practices relate to each other on the micro level and which tensions, overlaps, and alterations emerge in the situational interplay. If learning is thought of as complex integrative practices that are linked by a teleoaffective structure, the single practices might be the matter of transformation (Schatzki, 1996, p. 98). If one assumes that each practice has an inherent logic of its own, the interplay of practices can also be described with the metaphor 'interference' (Breidenstein, 2021, p. 934). Thus, the proficiency level associated with the way content is presented in the textbook or by the teacher could e.g., be 'superposed' by the pragmatics and efficiency of task processing (Martens & Asbrand, 2021). Therefore, secondly, it is necessary to ask about the consequences that the interplay of practices has for subject-specific learning. In the presentation, we explore these two questions and relate our reflections to a videotaped classroom scene from elementary school, which was collected as part of the INTERFACH video study. In terms of subject-specific learning, we refer to mathematics and to language learning.

Breidenstein, G. (2021). “Interferierende Praktiken. Zum heuristischen Potenzial praxeologischer Unterrichtsforschung.” Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 24(4), 933–953. Breidenstein, G., & Rademacher, S. (2017). Individualisierung und Kontrolle. Empirische Studien zum geöffneten Unterricht in der Grundschule. Springer VS. Lipowsky, F. & Lotz, M. (2015). Ist Individualisierung der Königsweg zum Lernen? Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Theorien, Konzepten und empirischen Befunden. In G. Mehlhorn, F. Schulz & K. Schöppe (Eds.), Begabungen entwickeln & Kreativität fördern (pp. 155-219). Kopaed. Schatzki, T. (1996). Social Practices. A Wittgensteinian approach to human activity and the social. Cambridge University Press. Schmidt, R. (2018). Praxeologisieren. In J. Budde, J.M. Bittner, A. Bossen & G. Rißler (Eds.), Konturen praxisttheoretischer Erziehungswissenschaft (pp. 20–31). Beltz Juventa. Martens, M., & Asbrand, B. (2021). "Schülerjob" revisited: Zur Passung von Lehr- und Lernhabitus im Unterricht. Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung, 11(1), 55-73. Vanderstraeten, R. (2001). “The School Class as an Interaction Order.” British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22(2), 267–277.