Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education

2014 Edition
| Editors: Stephen Lerman

Anthropological Approaches in Mathematics Education, French Perspectives

  • Yves ChevallardEmail author
  • Gérard Sensevy
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4978-8_9


This entry encompasses two interrelated though distinct approaches to mathematics education: the anthropological theory of the didactic (ATD for short) and the joint action theory in didactics (JATD). Historically, the germs of ATD are to be found in the theory of didactic transposition (Chevallard 1991), whose scope was at first limited to the genesis and the ensuing peculiarities of the (mathematical) “contents” studied at school; from this perspective, ATD should be regarded as the result of a definite effort to go further by providing a unitary theory of didactic phenomena as defined in what follows. As for JATD, it has emerged from the theory of didactic situations (Brousseau 1997) and the anthropological theory of the didactic by focusing on the very nature of the communicational epistemic process within didactic transactions. ATD and JATD share a common conception of knowledge as a practice and a discourse on practice together – i.e., as a praxeology – along...


Anthropology Didactics Joint action Mathematics Praxeology School epistemology 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Bosch M et al (eds) (2011) Un panorama de la TAD. An overview of ATD. CRM, Barcelona. http://www.recercat.net/bitstream/handle/2072/200617/Documents10.pdf?sequence=1
  2. Bronner A et al (eds) (2010) Apports de la théorie anthropologique du didactique. Diffuser les mathématiques (et les autres savoirs) comme outils de connaissance et d’action. IUFM, MontpellierGoogle Scholar
  3. Brousseau G (1997) Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  4. Chevallard Y (1980) The didactics of mathematics: its problematic and related research. Rercherches en Didactique des Mathématiques 2(1):146–157Google Scholar
  5. Chevallard Y (1990) On mathematics education and culture: critical afterthoughts. Educ Stud Math 21:3–27Google Scholar
  6. Chevallard Y (1991) La transposition didactique – Du savoir savant au savoir enseigné. La pensée sauvage, GrenobleGoogle Scholar
  7. Chevallard Y (1992) Fundamental concepts in didactics: perspectives provided by an anthropological approach. In: Douady R, Mercier A (eds) Research in didactiqueof mathematics, selected papers. La pensée sauvage, Grenoble, pp 131–167Google Scholar
  8. Chevallard Y (2006) Steps towards a new epistemology in mathematics education. In: Bosch M (ed) Proceedings of CERME 4. Fundemi IQS, Barcelone, pp 21–30Google Scholar
  9. Chevallard Y (2007) Readjusting didactics to a changing epistemology. Eur Educ Res J 6(2):131–134Google Scholar
  10. Chevallard Y (to appear) Teaching mathematics in tomorrow’s society: a case for an oncoming counterparadigm. Regular lecture at ICME-12 (Seoul, 8–15 July 2012). http://www.icme12.org/upload/submission/1985_F.pdf
  11. Chevallard Y, Ladage C (2008) E-learning as a touchstone for didactic theory, and conversely. J E-Learn Knowl Soc 4(2):163–171Google Scholar
  12. Lewin K (1952) Field theory in social science: selected theoretical papers by Kurt Lewin. Tavistock, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Ligozat F, Schubauer-Leoni M-L (2009) The joint action theory in didactics. Why do we need it in the case of teaching and learning mathematics. In: Durand-Guerrier V, Soury-Lavergne S, Arzarello F (eds) Proceedings of CERME6, January 28th–February 1st 2009, Lyon, pp 1615–1624. INRP. www.inrp.fr/editions/cerme6
  14. Mercier A, Sensevy G, Schubauer-Leoni M-L (2000) How social interactions within a class depend on the teacher’s assessment of the various pupil’s mathematical capabilities, a case study. ZDM Int J Math Educ 32(5):126–130Google Scholar
  15. Ruiz-Higueras L, Estepa A, Javier GF (eds) (2007) Sociedad, Escuela y Matemáticas. Aportaciones de la Teoría Antropológica de lo Didáctico(TAD). Universidad de Jaén, JaénGoogle Scholar
  16. Sensevy G (2011a) Overcoming fragmentation: towards a joint action theory in didactics. In: Hudson B, Meyer M (eds) Beyond fragmentation: didactics, learning and teaching in Europe. Barbara Budrich, Opladen/Farmington Hills, pp 60–76Google Scholar
  17. Sensevy G (2011b) Patterns of didactic intentions. Thought collective and documentation work. In: Gueudet G, Pepin B, Trouche L (eds) From text to “lived” resources: mathematics curriculum materials and teacher development. Springer, New York, pp 43–57Google Scholar
  18. Sensevy G (2012) About the joint action theory in didactics. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 15(3):503–516. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11618-012-0305-9#Google Scholar
  19. Sensevy G, Forest D (2012) Semiosis process in instructional practice. In: ICLS2012 proceedings, vol 1, pp 17–24. http://fr.scribd.com/doc/109869021/ICLS2012-Proceedings-Vol-1-2012[35/500−42/500]
  20. Sensevy G, Mercier A, Schubauer-Leoni M-L, Ligozat F, Perrot G (2005) An attempt to model the teacher’s action in mathematics. Educ Stud Math 59(1):153–181Google Scholar
  21. Sensevy G, Tiberghien A, Santini J, Laubé S, Griggs P (2008) Modelling, an epistemological approach: cases studies and implications for science teaching. Sci Educ 92(3):424–446Google Scholar
  22. Tiberghien A, Sensevy G (2012) Video studies: time and duration in the teaching-learning processes In: Dillon J, Jorde D (eds) Science education research and practice in Europe: retrospective and prospective, pp 141–179. http://www.amazon.fr/Science-Education-Research-Practice-Europe/dp/9460918999

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Apprentissage Didactique, Evaluation, FormationUMR ADEF – Unité Mixte de RechercheMarseileFrance
  2. 2.Institute of Teacher EducationUniversity of Western BrittanyBrittanyFrance