Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 47, Issue 2, pp 171–183 | Cite as

Survey of key concepts in enactivist theory and methodology

  • David A. ReidEmail author
  • Joyce Mgombelo
Survey Paper
First Online:

Abstract

This article discusses key concepts within enactivist writing, focussing especially on concepts involved in the enactivist description of cognition as embodied action: perceptually guided action, embodiment, and structural coupling through recurrent sensorimotor patterns. Other concepts on which these concepts depend are also discussed, including structural determinism, operational closure, autonomy, autopoiesis, consensual domains, and cognition as effective action. Some related concepts that follow from an enactivist view of cognition are considered, in particular bringing forth a world and languaging. The use of enactivism as a methodology in mathematics education is also outlined. References to mathematics education research reported in this issue and elsewhere are used throughout to provide illustrations.

Keywords

Mathematics Education Operational Closure Mindfulness Meditation Mathematics Education Research Structural Coupling 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Tom Kieren for a very inspiring dog walking story. Thanks to Lolis Lozano, Laurinda Brown, Alf Coles, Teresa Rojano and Brent Davis for comments on earlier drafts.

References

  1. Abrahamson, D., & Trninic, D. (2015). Bringing forth mathematical concepts: signifying sensorimotor enactment in fields of promoted action. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 47(2) (this issue). doi: 10.1007/s11858-014-0620-0.
  2. Baraldi, C., Corsi, G., Esposito, E. (1997). GLU. Glossar zu Niklas Luhmanns Theorie sozialer Systeme. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  3. Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: a necessary unity. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
  4. Bateson, G. (2000). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (first published in 1972).Google Scholar
  5. Begg, A. (2001). Ethnomathematics: why, and what else? ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 33(3), 71–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Begg, A. (2013). Interpreting enactivism for learning and teaching. Education Sciences and Society, 4(1), 81–96.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, L., & Coles, A. (2011). Developing expertise: how enactivism re-frames mathematics teacher development. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(6–7), 861–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, L., & Coles, A. (2012). Developing “deliberate analysis” for learning mathematics and for mathematics teacher education: how the enactive approach to cognition frames reflection. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80(1–2), 217–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell, S. (2010). Embodied minds and dancing brains: new opportunities for research in mathematics education. In B. Sriraman & L. English (Eds.), Theories of mathematics education: seeking new frontiers (pp. 309–331). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cobb, P. (1985). Two children’s anticipations, beliefs, and motivations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 16(2), 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cobb, P. (1986). Contexts, goals, beliefs, and learning mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 6(2), 2–9.Google Scholar
  12. Coles, A. (2013). Using video for professional development: the role of the discussion facilitator. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16(3), 165–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coles, A. (2015). On enactivism and language: a methodology for studying talk in mathematics classrooms. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 47(2) (this issue).Google Scholar
  14. Davis, B., & Simmt, E. (2003). Understanding learning systems: mathematics education and complexity science. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(2), 137–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davis, B., Sumara, D., & Kieren, T. (1996). Cognition, co-emergence, curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(2), 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Di Paolo, E., Rohde, M., & De Jaegher, H. (2010). Horizons for the enactive mind: values, social interaction and play. In J. Stewart, O. Gapenne, & E. Di Paolo (Eds.), Enaction: Towards a new paradigm for cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Ernest, P. (2006). Reflections on theories of learning. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 38(1), 3–7.Google Scholar
  18. Ferrara, F. (2003). Metaphors as vehicles of knowledge: an exploratory analysis. In N. Pateman, B. Dougherty, & J. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol 2 (pp. 373–380). Honolulu: PME.Google Scholar
  19. Goodchild, S. (2014). Enactivist theories. In Encyclopedia of mathematics education. New York: Springer. http://www.springerreference.com/docs/html/chapterdbid/327537.html.
  20. Gordon-Calvert, L., Kieren, T., Reid, D., & Simmt, E. (1995). Thinking otherwise: enactivism, mathematics and education. In Paper presented at the meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Montreal.Google Scholar
  21. Khan, S., Francis, 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). doi: 10.1007/s11858-014-0623-x.
  22. Kieren, T. (1994). Orthogonal reflections on computer microworlds, constructivism, play and mathematical understanding. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 8(2), 132–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kieren, T., Gordon-Calvert, L., Reid, D., & Simmt, E. (1995). An enactivist research approach to mathematical activity: understanding, reasoning, and beliefs. San Francisco: Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  24. Kieren, T., Gordon-Calvert, L., Reid, D., & Simmt, E. (1996). Occasioning: learning in the interaction. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.Google Scholar
  25. Kieren, T., Simmt, E., & Mgombelo, J. (1997). Occasioning understanding: understanding occasioning. In Proceedings of the 19th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Columbus: The ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education.Google Scholar
  26. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: the embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic books.Google Scholar
  28. Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: how the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  29. Lozano, M-D. (2004). Characterising algebraic learning: an enactivist longitudinal study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Bristol.Google Scholar
  30. Lozano, M-D. (2015). Using enactivism as a methodology to characterise algebraic learning. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 47(2) (this issue).Google Scholar
  31. Luhmann, N. (1986). The autopoiesis of social systems. In F. Geyer, J. Van d. Zeuwen (Eds.), Sociocybernetic paradoxes: observation, control and evolution of self-steering systems (pp. 172–192). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Luhmann, N. (1997). Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  34. Maheux, J-F., & 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
  35. Maheux, J.-F., & Roth, W. M. (2011). Relationality and mathematical knowing. For the Learning of Mathematics, 31(3), 36–41.Google Scholar
  36. Maturana, H. (1978). Cognition. In P. Hejl, W. Köck, & G. Roth (Eds.), Wahrnehmung und Kommunikation (pp. 29–49). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  37. Maturana, H. (1980a). Introduction. In H. Maturana & F. Varela (Eds.), Autopoiesis and cognition: the realization of the living (pp. xi–xxx). Boston: Reidel Publishing.Google Scholar
  38. Maturana, H. (1980b). Biology of cognition. In H. Maturana & F. Varela (Eds.), Autopoiesis and cognition: the realization of the living (pp. 5–58). Boston: Reidel Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Maturana, H. (1987). Everything said is said by an observer. In W. Thompson (Ed.), Gaia: a way of knowing (pp. 65–82). Hudson: Lindisfarne Press.Google Scholar
  40. Maturana, H. (1988). Ontology of observing: the biological foundations of self consciousness and the physical domain of existence. In Donaldson, R. (Ed.), Texts in cybernetic theory: an in-depth exploration of the thought of Humberto Maturana, William T. Powers, and Ernst von Glasersfeld. Felton: American Society for Cybernetics (conference workbook). http://ada.evergreen.edu/~arunc/texts/cybernetics/oo/old/oo.pdf. (originally published in E. Caianiello (Ed.) (1987) Physics of cognitive processes (pp. 324–379). Singapore: World Scientific).
  41. Maturana, H. (2002). Autopoiesis, structural coupling and cognition: a history of these and other notions in the biology of cognition. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 9(3–4), 5–34.Google Scholar
  42. Maturana, H. (2012). Reflections on my collaboration with Francisco Varela. Constructivist Foundations, 7(3), 155–164.Google Scholar
  43. Maturana, H. & Varela, F. (1973). De Macquinas y Seres Vivos (Of living machines and beings). Santiago: Editorial Universitaria Santiago (published in English as Maturana & Varela 1980b, according to Maturana 1988).Google Scholar
  44. Maturana, H. & Varela, F. (1975). Autopoietic systems: a characterization of the living organization (Biological Computer Laboratory Research Report BCL 9.4). Urbana: University of Illinois (also published as Maturana & Varela 1980b, according to Varela 1979).Google Scholar
  45. Maturana, H. & Varela, F. (Eds.) (1980a). Autopoiesis and cognition: the realization of the living. Boston: Reidel Publishing (reprints Maturana, 1970 and Maturana & Varela, 1973, 1975).Google Scholar
  46. Maturana, H. & Varela, F. (1980b). Autopoiesis: the organization of the living. In H. Maturana & F. Varela (Eds.), Autopoiesis and cognition: the realization of the living (pp. 73–138). Boston: Reidel Publishing (English version of Maturana and Varela, 1973, according to Maturana, 1988; also published as Maturana & Varela, 1975, according to Varela, 1979).Google Scholar
  47. Maturana, H. & Varela, F. (1992). The tree of knowledge: the biological roots of human understanding. Boston: Shambhala (first edition published 1987).Google Scholar
  48. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception (C. Smith, Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul (original work published 1945).Google Scholar
  49. 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). doi: 10.1007/s11858-014-0621-z.
  50. Mgombelo, J. (2002). Mathematics content-pedagogy knowledge: a psychoanalytic and enactivist approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Edmonton: University of Alberta.Google Scholar
  51. Miranda, H., Namukasa, I., & Mgombelo, J. (2005). Complexity-enactivist inquiry. In A paper presented at the 1st Africa Regional Congress of Commission of Mathematics Instruction (ICMI), 22–25 June 2005. University of Witwatersrand, Education Campus, Johannesburg.Google Scholar
  52. Namukasa, I. (2005). Attending in mathematics: a dynamic view about students’ thinking. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Edmonton: University of Alberta.Google Scholar
  53. Namukasa, I., Miranda, H., & Mgombelo, J. (2007). Promoting complexity research in mathematics education. In Lamberg, T., & Wiest, L. R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 272–275). Stateline: University of Nevada, Reno.Google Scholar
  54. Núñez, R. (1999). Could the future taste purple? Reclaiming mind, body and cognition. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(11–12), 41–60.Google Scholar
  55. Núñez, R., Edwards, L., & Matos, J. (1999). Embodied cognition as grounding for situatedness and context in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39(1–3), 45–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Oehrtman, M. (2003). Strong and weak metaphors for limits. In B. Dougherty & J. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 397–404). Honolulu: PME.Google Scholar
  57. Preciado Babb, A., Metz, M., & Marcotte, C. (2015). Awareness as an enactivist framework for the learning of teachers, mentors and institutions. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 47(2) (this issue).Google Scholar
  58. Prediger, S., Bikner-Ahsbahs, A., & Arzarello, F. (2008). Networking strategies and methods for connecting theoretical approaches: first steps towards a conceptual framework. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40(2), 165–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Radford, L., Edwards, L., & Arzarello, F. (2009). Introduction: beyond words. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(2), 91–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Reid, D. (1995). The need to prove. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Edmonton: University of Alberta.Google Scholar
  61. Reid, D. (1996). Enactivism as a methodology. In L. Puig & A Gutiérrez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 4, pp. 203–210). Valencia: PME.Google Scholar
  62. Reid, D. (2011). Enaction: an incomplete paradigm for consciousness science. Constructivist Foundations, 7(1), 81–83.Google Scholar
  63. Samson, D., & Schäfer, M. (2011). Enactivism, figural apprehension and knowledge objectification: an exploration of figural pattern generalisation. For the Learning of Mathematics, 31(1), 37–43.Google Scholar
  64. Simmt, E. (2000). Mathematics knowing in action: a fully embodied interpretation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Edmonton: University of Alberta.Google Scholar
  65. Simon, M. (2013). The need for theories of conceptual learning and teaching of mathematics. In K. Leatham (Ed.), Vital directions for mathematics education research (pp. 95–118). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Steinbring, H. (2005). Analyzing mathematical teaching-learning situations: the interplay of communicational and epistemological constraints. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 59(1–3), 313–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Steinbring, H. (2015). Mathematical interaction shaped by communication, epistemological constraints and enactivism. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 47(2) (this issue). doi: 10.1007/s11858-014-0629-4.
  68. Thompson, E. (2005). Sensorimotor subjectivity and the enactive approach to experience. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4, 407–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life: biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Towers, J., & Davis, B. (2002). Structuring occasions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(3), 313–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Towers, J., & Martin, L. (2015). Enactivism and the study of collectivity. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 47(2) (this issue).Google Scholar
  72. Varela, F. (1979). Principles of biological autonomy. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  73. Varela, F. (1981). Autonomy and autopoiesis. In G. Roth, & H. Schwegler, H. (Eds.), Self-organizing systems: an interdisciplinary approach (pp. 14–24). New York: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
  74. Varela, F., & Goguen, J. (1978). The arithmetic of closure. Cybernetics and System, 8(3–4), 291–324.Google Scholar
  75. Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  76. von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80(1), 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität BremenBremenGermany
  2. 2.Acadia UniversityWolfvilleCanada
  3. 3.Brock UniversitySt CatharinesCanada

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options