Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 90, Issue 2, pp 105–120 | Cite as

The importance of dialogic processes to conceptual development in mathematics

  • Sibel Kazak
  • Rupert Wegerif
  • Taro Fujita


We argue that dialogic theory, inspired by the Russian scholar Mikhail Bakhtin, has a distinct contribution to the analysis of the genesis of understanding in the mathematics classroom. We begin by contrasting dialogic theory to other leading theoretical approaches to understanding conceptual development in mathematics influenced by Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky. We argue that both Piagetian and Vygotskian traditions in mathematics education overlook important dialogic causal processes enabling or hindering switches in perspective between voices in relationship. To illustrate this argument, we use Piagetian-, Vygotskian- and Bakhtinian-inspired approaches to analyse a short extract of classroom data in which two 12-year-old boys using TinkerPlots software change their understanding of a probability problem. While all three analyses have something useful to offer, our dialogic analysis reveals aspects of the episode, in particular the significance of the emotional engagement and the laughter of the students, which are occluded by the other two approaches.


Conceptual development Theory Dialogic Bakhtin Piaget Vygotsky 



The research study described in this article was supported by a Marie Curie Intra European Fellowship within the 7th European Community Framework Programme.


  1. Artigue, M. (2002). Learning mathematics in a CAS environment: The genesis of a reflection about instrumentation and the dialectics between technical and conceptual work. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7(3), 245–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakhtin, M. M. (1968). Rabelais and his world (H. Iswolsky, Trans.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M.M. Bakhtin (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics (C. Emerson, ed. and Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (V. W. McGee, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dawes, L., Mercer, N., & Wegerif, R. (2000). Thinking together: A programme of activities for developing speaking, listening and thinking skills for children aged 8–11. Birmingham: Imaginative Minds Ltd.Google Scholar
  7. Drijvers, P., Kieran, C., & Mariotti, M. A. (2010). Integrating technology into mathematics education: Theoretical perspectives. In C. Hoyles & J. B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology—Rethinking the terrain (pp. 89–132). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Guin, D., & Trouche, L. (1999). The complex process of converting tools into mathematical instruments: The case of calculators. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 3, 195–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hand, V. (2012). Seeing culture and power in mathematical learning: Toward a model of equitable instruction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80, 233–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kazak, S., Wegerif, R., & Fujita, T. (2014). Supporting students’ probabilistic reasoning through the use of technology and dialogic talk. In S. Pope (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th British Congress of Mathematics Education (pp. 215–222). Nottingham: BCME.Google Scholar
  11. Kidron, I., Bikner-Ahsbahs, A., Monaghan, J., Radford, L., & Sensevy, G. (2012). CERME7 Working Group 16: Different theoretical perspectives and approaches in research in mathematics education. Research in Mathematics Education, 14, 213–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Konold, C., & Miller, C. D. (2011). TinkerPlots2.0: Dynamic data exploration. Emeryville, CA: Key Curriculum.Google Scholar
  13. Kozulin, A. (1998). Psychological tools: A sociocultural approach to education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Littleton, K., Light, P., Joiner, R., Messer, D., & Barnes, P. (1998). Gender, task scenarios and children’s computer-based problem solving. Educational Psychology, 18(3), 327–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mason, J. (1989). Mathematical abstraction as the result of a delicate shift of attention. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9, 2–8.Google Scholar
  16. Mason, J., & Davis, J. (1988). Cognitive and metacognitive shifts. In A. Borbas (Ed.), Proceedings of the 12th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 487-494). Veszprem, Hungary: PME.Google Scholar
  17. Marteinson, P. (2006). On the problem of the comic: A philosophical study on the origins of laughter. Ottawa, Canada: Legas Press.Google Scholar
  18. Matusov, E. (2009). Journey into dialogic pedagogy. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Matusov, E. (2011). Irreconcilable differences in Vygotsky’s and Bakhtin’s approaches to the social and the individual: An educational perspective. Culture & Psychology, 17, 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mercer, N. (2013). The social brain, language, and goal-directed collective thinking: A social conception of cognition and its implications for understanding how we think, teach, and learn. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 148–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mercer, N., & Sams, C. (2006). Teaching children how to use language to solve maths problems. Language and Education, 20, 507–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 1, 95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Monaghan, F. (2005). ‘Don’t think in your head, think aloud’: ICT and exploratory talk in the primary school mathematics classroom. Research in Mathematics Education, 7, 83–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mugny, G., & Doise, W. (1978). Socio-cognitive conflict and structure of individual and collective performances. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 181–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Plato (2006). Phaedrus (B. Jowett, Trans.). (Original work published 360 BCE) Retrieved from
  27. Radford, L. (2000). Signs and meanings in students’ emergent algebraic thinking: A semiotic analysis. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42, 237–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Radford, L. (2003). Gestures, speech, and the sprouting of signs: A semiotic-cultural approach to students’ types of generalization. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5, 37–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rojas-Drummond, S. M., Albarrán, C. D., & Littleton, K. (2008). Collaboration, creativity and the co-construction of oral and written texts. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3(3), 177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Scott, S. (2013). Laughter—The ordinary and the extraordinary. The Psychologist, 26, 264–268.Google Scholar
  31. Silverman, I. W., & Stone, J. M. (1972). Modifying cognitive functioning through participation in a problem-solving group. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 603–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Simon, M., Tzur, R., Heinz, K., & Kinzel, M. (2004). Explicating a mechanism for conceptual learning: Elaborating the construct of reflective abstraction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35, 305–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Solomon, Y. (2012). Finding a voice? Narrating the female self in mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80, 171–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Trouche, L. (2004). Managing the complexity of human/machine interactions in computerized learning environments: Guiding students’ command process through instrumental orchestrations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9(3), 281–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vérillon, P. (2000). Revisiting Piaget and Vygotsky: In search of a learning model for technology education. Journal of Technology Studies, 26(1), 3–10.Google Scholar
  36. von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London: Falmer Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Walkerdine, V. (1990). Mastery of reason: Cognitive development and the production of rationality. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Wegerif, R. (1999). Two models of reason in education. The School Field, 3–4, 76–105.Google Scholar
  41. Wegerif, R. (2005). Reason and creativity in classroom dialogues. Language and Education, 19(3), 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic, education and technology: Resourcing the space of learning. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wegerif, R. (2011). From dialectic to dialogic: A response to Wertsch and Kazak. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), Theorizing practice: Theories of learning and research into instruction practice (pp. 201–222). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wegerif, R., Boero, P., Andriessen, J., & Forman, E. (2009). A dialogue on dialogue and its place within education. In T. Dreyfus, R. Hershkowitz, & B. Schwarz (Eds.), Transforming knowledge in classroom interaction (pp. 184–199). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Zack, V., & Graves, B. (2001). Making mathematical meaning through dialogue: “Once you think of it, the z minus three seems pretty weird”. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46, 229–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationPamukkale UniversityDenizliTurkey
  2. 2.University of ExeterExeterUK

Personalised recommendations