Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 47, Issue 2, pp 235–246 | Cite as

On enactivism and language: towards a methodology for studying talk in mathematics classrooms

  • Alf ColesEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

This article is an early step in the development of a methodological approach to the study of language deriving from an enactivist theoretical stance. Language is seen as a co-ordination of co-ordinations of action. Meaning and intention cannot easily be interpreted from the actions and words of others; instead, careful attention can be placed in not going beyond what is observable within the text itself, for example by focusing on patterns in word use. Conversations are highly ritualised affairs and from an enactivist perspective these rituals can be read in terms of pattern. The notion of the ‘structural coupling’ of systems, which will inevitably have taken place in a classroom, means that the history and context of communication needs to be taken into account. The methodological perspective put forward in this article is exemplified with an analysis of two classroom incidents (involving different teachers) in which almost identical words are used by the teachers, but markedly different things happen next. The analysis reveals a complexity within the classroom that, although available to direct observation, only became apparent using an approach to studying language that took account of the context and history of communication in a recursive process of data collection and analysis.

Keywords

Language Enactivism Mathematical learning Methodology 

References

  1. Barwell, R. (2008). Discourse, mathematics and mathematics education. In M. Martin-Jones, A.-M. de Mejia & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, vol. 3: Discourse and education (2nd ed., pp. 317–328). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Bateson, G. (2000). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bateson, G. (2002). Mind and nature: a necessary unity. Cresskill: Hampton Press Inc.Google Scholar
  4. Blumer, H. (1954). What’s wrong with social theory. American Sociological Review, 19(1), 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, L., & Coles, A. (2008). Hearing Silence: Steps to teaching mathematics. Cambridge: Black Apollo Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, L., & Coles, A. (2011). Developing expertise: how enactivism reframes mathematics teacher development. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(6–7), 861–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coles, A. (2009). Towards an aesthetics of education. In S. Lerman & B. Davis (Eds.), Mathematical action & structures of noticing: studies on John Mason’s contribution to mathematics education (pp. 135–146). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Coles, A. (2013a). Being alongside: for the teaching and learning of mathematics. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coles, A. (2013b). On metacognition. For the Learning of Mathematics, 33(1), 21–26.Google Scholar
  10. de Freitas, L. (2010). Regulating mathematics classroom discourse: text, context, and intersubjectivity. In M. Walshaw (Ed.), Unpacking pedagogy: new perspectives for mathematics classrooms (pp. 129–151). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition. London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  12. Goffman, E. (1975). Frame analysis. Middlesex: Penguin books.Google Scholar
  13. Halliday, M. (1999). The notion of “context” in language education. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Text and context in functional linguistics (pp. 1–29). Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Herbel-Eisenmann, B., & Wagner, D. (2010). Appraising lexical bundles in mathematics classroom discourse: obligation and choice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(1), 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Wagner, D., & Cortes, V. (2010). Lexical bundle analysis in mathematics classroom discourse: The significance of stance. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(1), 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Juarrero, A. (2002). Dynamics in action: intentional behaviour as a complex system. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Khan, S., Francis-Poscente, K., & Davis, B. (2015). Accumulation of experience in a vast number of cases: Enactivism as a fit framework for the study of spatial reasoning in mathematics education. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 47(2) (this issue).Google Scholar
  18. Lefstein, A. (2008). Changing classroom practice through the English National Literacy Strategy: a micro-interactional perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 701–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Maheux, J. & Proulx, J. (2015). Doing|mathematics: Analysing data with/in an enactivist-inspired approach. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 47(2) (this issue).Google Scholar
  20. Maturana, H. (1988). Reality: the search for objectivity or the quest for a compelling argument. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 9(1), 25–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1987). The tree of knowledge: the biological roots of human understanding. Shambala: Boston & London.Google Scholar
  22. Maturana, H., & Verden-Zoller, G. (2008). The origin of humanness in the biology of love. Exeter: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
  23. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2002). Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Metz, M. & Simmt, E. (2015). Researching mathematical experience from the perspective of an empathic second-person observer. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 47(2) (this issue).Google Scholar
  25. Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. In E. Ochs & B. Schiffelin (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 43–72). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  26. Rampton, B. (2006). Language in late modernity: interaction in an urban school. Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rampton, B. (2007a). Neo-Hymesian linguistic ethnography in the United Kingdom. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(5), 584–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rampton, B. (2007b). Illustrations of linguistic ethnography in action: a job interview. Resource document. Ethnography, Language & Communication. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/1481/1/LE%20illustrative%20analyses%20takehome%2012mar073.pdf. Accessed 15 March 2008.
  29. Reid, D. (1996). Enactivism as a methodology. In L. Puig & A. Gutierrez (Eds.), Proceedings of the twentieth annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 4, pp. 203–209). Valencia: PME 20.Google Scholar
  30. Reid, D., & Mgombelo, J. (2015). Roots and key concepts in enactivist theory and methodology. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 15(2) (this issue).Google Scholar
  31. Sacks, H. (1995). Harvey sacks lectures on conversation. Volumes I & II. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schegloff, E. (1989). Harvey sacks—lectures 1964–1965: an introduction/memoir. Human Studies, 12, 185–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Steinbring, H. (2015). Mathematical interaction shaped by communication, epistemological constraints and enactivism. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 15(2) (this issue).Google Scholar
  34. Stroh Becvar, D., & Becvar, R. (2000). Family therapy: a systemic integration. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  35. Thompson, E., & Stapleton, M. (2009). Making sense of sense-making: reflections on enactive and extended mind theories. Topoi, 28(1), 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Varela, F. (1999). Ethical know-how: action, wisdom and cognition. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. von Bertalanffy, L. (1969). General system theory. New York: George Braziller.Google Scholar
  38. Wittgenstein, L. (2009). Philosophical investigations (4th ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations