This paper is a commentary on the theoretical formulations of the five empirical papers in this special issue. All five papers use aspects of the theory of commognition as presented by Anna Sfard; however, even when the same notions (e.g., rituals or explorations) are incorporated into theoretical frameworks undergirding the research, these notions are not always used in the same way. The analysis of how commognitive theory is used in the papers suggests that it is broad enough to be a useful theoretical lens in diverse settings. However, there are many aspects of Sfard’s careful theoretical formulation that are not touched upon, suggesting that there is much more potential for use of the theory than has been realized in these papers.
KeywordsCommognition Communication theory Theoretical framework
- Cruz, I. C., Presmeg, N. C., & MaGüemes, R. (2001). Reflections from two case studies of imagery and meaning in eighth grade mathematics. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 23(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
- Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: Reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22(1), 1–36.Google Scholar
- Sfard, A. (1992). Operational origin of mathematical objects and the quandary of reification—the case of function. In E. Dubinsky & G. Harel (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy (pp. 59–84). Washington DC: Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar
- Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In R. Lesh & A. E. Kelly (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 267–307). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar