Reflective Discourse and Collective Reflection Author(s): Paul Cobb, Ada Boufi, Kay McClain, Joy Whitenack Source:

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 28, No. 3 (May, 1997), pp. 258277 Published by: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/749781 . Accessed: 23/09/2011 19:39
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal for Research in Mathematics Education.

http://www.jstor.org

Journalfor Researchin MathematicsEducation 1997, Vol. 28, No. 3, 258-277

Reflective Discourse and Collective Reflection

Paul Cobb, VanderbiltUniversity Ada Boufi, National and CapodistrianUniversityofAthens, Greece Kay McClain, VanderbiltUniversity Joy Whitenack,Universityof Missouri
The analysis in this paperfocuses on the relationshipbetween classroomdiscourse and mathematicaldevelopment. give particular We attention reflective to discourse,in whichmathematical activity is objectifiedandbecomes an explicit topic of conversation.We differentiatebetween students'developmentof particular mathematical conceptsandtheirdevelopmentof a general orientationto mathematical activity. Specific issues addressedinclude both the teacher'srole and the role of symbolizationin supporting reflective shifts in the discourse.We subsequently contrast analysisof reflectivediscoursewith Vygotskianaccountsof learningthatalso stress our the importance social interaction semioticmediation. thenrelatethe discussionto charof and We acterizationsof classroomdiscoursederivedfrom Lakatos'philosophicalanalysis.

Thecurrent in reform movement mathematics education emphaplacesconsiderable sis on the role thatclassroomdiscoursecan play in supportingstudents'conceptual development.The consensus on this point transcendstheoreticaldifferences and includes researcherswho draw primarily on mathematics as a discipline 1990),on constructivist (Lampert, theory(Cobb,Wood,& Yackel,1993;Thompson, & Boyd, 1994), and on socioculturaltheory (Forman,1996; Philipp, Thompson, in van Oers,1996).Ourpurpose thisarticle to suggestpossiblerelationships is between classroomdiscourseand the mathematical of the studentswho pardevelopment to ticipatein, andcontribute it. To thisend,we focus on a particular of discourse type thatwe call reflectivediscourse.It is characterized repeated shiftssuchthatwhat by and the students teacherdo in actionsubsequently becomesan explicitobjectof discussion. In fact, we might have called it mathematizing discoursebecause thereis a parallelbetweenits structure psychologicalaccountsof mathematical and develin which actions or processes are transformed conceptualmathematinto opment ical objects. In the course of the analysis, we also develop the relatedconstructof collective reflection.This latternotion refersto the joint or communalactivity of makingwhat was previouslydone in action an object of reflection.

A previous draftof this articlewas presentedat the Symposiumon Communicationfor Understandingin Classrooms, National Center for Research in MathematicalSciences Education,Madison,WI, October, 1994. The researchreportedin this paperwas supportedby the National Science Foundation undergrantNo. RED-9353587. The opinionsexpresseddo not necessarilyreflectthe views of the Foundation.The authorsare gratefulto ErnaYackel for her helpful comments on a previous draft.

Paul Cobb,Ada Boufi, KayMcClain,Joy Whitenack

259

accountsof mathematIn the first partof the article,we discuss action-oriented ical development and then present classroom episodes to exemplify reflective discourse and collective reflection. In subsequentsections, we clarify the stuto dents' and teacher'scontributions the developmentof reflective discourseand develconsiderpossible relationshipsbetween individualstudents'mathematical andthe classroomsocial processes in which they participate. Against this opment we relateour analysis of classroomdiscourseto the characterization background, the offeredby Lampert(1990), andthen concludeby summarizing pragmaticand theoreticalsignificance of the notion of reflective discourse. OBJECTS MATHEMATICAL ACTIONSAND MATHEMATICAL GrayandTall (1994) recentlyobservedthat"thenotionof actions or processes in has conceived mental as continually theliterature" 118). (p. objects featured becoming that As an example,theyreferto Piaget's(1972) contention actionson mathematical level. Piaget entitiesat one level becomemathematical objectsthemselvesat another to used the notionof reflectiveabstraction accountfor such developmentswherein actioncan be anticipated takenas a given, andthe and the resultof a mathematical an entitythatcan be conceptuallymanipulated. Mathematics actionitself becomes have called this developmental educators workingin the Piagetiantradition process (Steffe, von Glasersfeld,Richards,& Cobb, 1983) and "encapsula"integration" tion" (Dubinsky, 1991). The influence of this Piagetianview can also be seen in explicatetheVergnaud's(1982) discussionof the way in which studentsgradually orems-in-actionthatare initially outside theirconscious awareness. Sfard's (1991) accountof mathematical developmentis compatiblewith thatof or wherebyoperational processconPiagetin thatshe posits a processof reification She conceptionsevolve into object-likestructural conceptions. makesan important tribution grounding viewin detailed this historical of of by analyses a variety mathematical concepts includingnumberand function. In her view, the historicaldevelopment of mathematicscan be seen as a "long sequence of reifications,each one of them startingwhere the formerends, each one of them addinga new layer to the complex system of abstractnotions"(1991, p. 16). In addition,she illustrateshow the the developmentof ways of symbolizinghas supported reification processbothhistoricallyandin students'conceptualdevelopment.Thus,althoughshe is carefulto clarify thatthe developmentand use of symbols is by itself insufficient,Sfardand Linchevski(1994) contendthatmathematical in symbolsaremanipulable a way that words are not. In her view, this contributesto the reificationof activity and to the developmentof object-like structural conceptions. The generalnotionof processesbeingtransformed objectsalso features into promiof For he nentlyin Freudenthal's analysis mathematical development. example, argues that"theactivityof the lower level, thatis the organizingactivityby meansof this matterof level, becomes an object of analysis on the higherlevel; the operational the lowerlevel becomesa subjectmatter thenextlevel"(1973, p. 125).The agreeon menton this pointbetweenFreudenthal Piaget(1972) is particularly and significant

260

ReflectiveDiscourse and CollectiveReflection

has given thatFreudenthal criticizedotheraspects of Piaget's theory.Like Sfard, Freudenthal and his collaborators root much of their work in the history of mathematics.Perhapsbecause of this commonality,they also emphasizethe role thatdeveloping and using both informaland standard symbolic schemes can play in supportingthe transitionfrom action to object. It shouldbe notedthatthisbriefdiscussionof action-oriented thedevelopmental orieshasnecessarily beenselective hasomitted number important and a of contributions thoseof HarelandKaput (1991),Mason(1989),andPirieandKieren (1994). including Forourpurposes, sufficesto note two centralassumptions cut acrossthework it that of the theoristswe have referenced.The first is that students' sensory-motor and is viewed as the sourceof theirmathematical of knowing. conceptualactivity ways The second assumptionis that meaningfulmathematical activity is characterized and of real by thecreation conceptual manipulation experientially mathematical objects. In theremainder thisarticle, focuson a typeof classroom of we discourse appears that to supportstudents'reificationof theirmathematical activity. BACKGROUND:THE FIRST-GRADECLASSROOM The two sample episodes thatwe will presentfor illustrativepurposesare both takenfroma first-grade classroom whichwe conducted year-long in a teaching experiment.The episodes were selectedto clarifythe notionsof reflectivediscourseand collective reflectionand arenot intendedto demonstrate exemplarypractice.This classroomis of interestin thatthe mathematical of development all 18 childrenwas in interviews significant.Theirlearningwas documented a seriesof video-recorded conductedin September,December,January,and May. Ourfocus in these interand A views was on the children's conceptions strategies. varievolvingarithmetical in bothhorizontal number including ety of taskswerepresented eachset of interviews, and sentencesandwordproblems. tasksin the September Decemberinterviews The and involvednumbers 20, whereasthose in the January May interviewsinvolved to numbersto 100. In the Septemberinterviews,all 18 childrenused countingstrategies thatrangedfromcountingall on theirfingersto countingon andcountingdown. solutionssponor However,only 2 children developedderived-fact thinking-strategy andeach did so on only one occasion.In contrast,11 childrenused nontaneously, countingstrategiesroutinelyin the Decemberinterviewsto solve all or almostall to Another5 childrenused thinkingstrategies solve at leasthalf the taskspresented. in 2 the taskspresented. comparison the remaining children'sperformance the A of September and December interviews indicates that they had developed more sophisticatedcountingmethods. In the Januaryand May interviews, the tasks included word problems such as the following: Joe and Bob each graba handfulof candies out of a jar. Joe gets 53 and Bob gets 28. How manydoes Joe needto putbackso thathe andBob havethe same numberof candies? when in interviews occurred observed theJanuary The mostsophisticated solutions

Paul Cobb,Ada Boufi, Kay McClain,Joy Whitenack

261

7 of the children solved addition sentences such as 16 + 9 =

and 28 + 13 =

However,none of the childrenwere strategies. by developingefficientnoncounting In 12 solved ableto solve anyof thewordproblems presented. contrast, of thechildren all or almost all the taskspresentedin the May interviewsby using relativelyefficient noncountingstrategiesthatinvolved the conceptualcoordinationof units of 6 ten andone. The remaining childrenhadall made significant progresswhen comin interviews.Most now paredwith theirperformance the DecemberandJanuary to used thinkingstrategies routinely,andall but 1 child attempted develop solutions thatinvolved units of ten and one. Detailed analysisof the interviewscan be found in Cobb, Gravemeijer, Yackel, McClain,and Whitenack(in press) and Whitenack(1995). Ourpurposein giving this very brief summaryof the interviewresultsis merelyto indicatethat,by tradithe teacherwas reasonably successfulin supporting her tionalstandards, first-grade of students'mathematical development. Explanations her success necessarilymake in of established her referenceto a number issues includingtheinquirymicroculture issue classroomandthe sequencesof instructional activitiesshe used. An additional to role thatappeared play an important concernsthe natureof classroomdiscourse. REFLECTIVE DISCOURSE:AN INITIALEXAMPLE As we have noted, the children used a range of counting methods in the Septemberinterviews.The analysis of these interviewsalso indicatedthatfive of the childrencould not use theirfingers as substitutesfor otheritems. Forexample, the taskspresented September in includedelementary additionstoryproblemssuch as, "Canyou pretendthatyou have threeapples"(child nods affirmatively),"Can you pretendthat I have two apples"(child nods), "How many apples do we have together?You have threeand I have two." For these five children,the possibility of puttingup fingers as perceptualsubstitutesfor the apples did not arise and, as a consequence, they were not able to enter the situation described in the task statement.These findings were consistentwith our initial classroomobservations of the childrenand influencedthe first sequenceof instructional activitiesthatwe in collaboration with the teacher.This sequenceinvolvedfingerpatterns, developed and spatialpatterns,andthe conceptualpartitioning recomposingof collections of to 10 items. up The firstepisode we will presentoccurreda week afterthe September interviews werecompletedandinvolvedan instructional to support develthe activitydesigned of flexible partitioning a collectionof five itemsconceptualized the in opment (e.g., as four and one or threeandtwo as the need arises).The teacherused imagination an overheadprojectorandbeganby showing a pictureof two trees,one largerthan the other,andfive monkeys.She askedthe childrenseveralquestionsaboutthe pictureand explainedthatthe monkeys could play in the trees and could swing from one treeto the other.She thenasked,"Ifthey all wantto play in the trees,just think of ways thatwe can see all five monkeys in the two trees-all five monkeys to be in two trees."

262

ReflectiveDiscourse and Collective Reflection

The collection of monkeys remainedvisible throughoutthe ensuing discussion so that all the childrenmight be able to participateby proposingvariousways in which the monkeyscould be in the trees. The teacherdrew a verticalline between the trees and then recorded the children's suggestions, creating a table in the process. For example, the following exchange occurred after the teacher had recordedtwo children'scontributions of (shown in Figure 1).The contributions the five childrenwho could not initially use theirfingers as perceptualsubstitutesare markedwith asterisks. 50 23

Figure 1. Graphicfor the "monkeysin the trees"task

Anna*: I think three that couldbe in thelittletreeandtwocouldbe in thebigtree. Teacher: OK,three could inthelittle twocould inthebigtree[writes between be be 312 tree, thetrees].So, still3 and2 buttheyarein different treesthistime;threein the littleoneandtwoin thebig one.Linda, haveanother you way? Linda*: Fivecouldbe in thebig one. Teacher: OK,five couldbe in thebig one [writes andthenhowmanywouldbe in the 5] littleone?
Linda*: Zero.

Teacher: [Writes Another 0]. way?Another way,Jan? Jan: Fourcouldbe in thelittletree,one in thebig tree. We note in passing thatas partof her role, the teachergave a commentaryfrom the perspective one who couldjudge whichaspectsof thechildren'sactivitymight of be mathematicallysignificant.Thus, she relatedAnna's proposalto the previous suggestionby saying, "Stillthreeandtwo butthey are in a differenttreethistime."

Paul Cobb,Ada Boufi, Kay McClain,Joy Whitenack

263

To this point, the theme of the discoursehad been generatingthe possible ways that childproposed four(monkeys)could the monkeyscouldbe in the trees.Another one in the little tree, resultingin the recordof the children's be in the big tree and solutions shown in Figure 2. At this point a shift occurredin the discourse:

5 2 3 0 4 1

0 3 2 5 1 4

of 2. suggestions Figure Therecord thechildren's

Teacher: Are theremore ways? Elizabeth? Elizabeth*:Idon't thinkthereare more ways. Teacher: You don't think so? Why not? Because [that's]all the ways thatthey can be. Elizabeth*:

Elizabeth presumably made her conjecture because she could not think of anotherpossibility.Anotherchild challengedElizabethby proposingan alternative in beenrecorded thetable.Inthecourseof thisexchange, had that,it transpired, already the themebecamedecidingwhethertherewere any morepossibilitiesin whatmight be termed an empirical way-by generating possibilities and checking them againstthe table. the A further in thediscourse shift occurred whentheteacher asked following question. Teacher: Is there waythatwe couldbe sureandknowthatwe'vegotten theways? a all
screenandpointsto thetwo treesandthetableas he explains.] [Goesto theoverhead See, if you had fourin this [big] treeand one in this [small]treein here, andone in this [big] treeandfourin this [small]tree,couldn'tbe thatno more.If you had five in this [big] tree and none in this[small]tree, you could do one more. But you've already got it right here [points to 510]. And if you get two in this [small]treeandthreein that[big] tree,butyou can't do thatbecausethreein this [small] one and two in that [big] one-there is no more ways, I guess. Teacher: WhatJordansaid is thatyou can look at the numbersand there are only a certain ... thereare only certainways you can make five. Mark: I know if you already had two up there and then both ways, you cannot do it no more. Jordan: Previously, the children had engaged in generating the possible ways the monkeys could be in the trees. Now, the results of that activity were emerging as explicit

objectsof discoursethatcould themselvesbe relatedto each other.It is this feature

264

ReflectiveDiscourse and CollectiveReflection

of the episode thatleads us to classify it as an exampleof reflectivediscourse.The to significanceof this type of discourselies in its relationship the accountsof mathematical development given by Piaget (1972), Sfard (1991), and Freudenthal that arosefor thechildren reflecton andobjecto (1973).We conjecture opportunities in tify theirprioractivityas they participated the discourse.In otherwords,the childrendid not happento spontaneously begin reflectingat the same moment.Instead, reflectionwas supportedand enabledby participation the discourse. in To accountfor this featureof reflective discourse,it might at first glance seem reasonable suggestthatthechildren to abstracengagedin a collectiveactof reflective tion. However, Piaget's (1972) notion of reflective abstraction a psychological is construct refersto theprocessby whichindividual that children theirmathreorganize ematicalactivity.The contentionthatthe sampleepisode involved a collective act of reflectiveabstraction therefore their impliesthateach of the children reorganized a significant mathematical advance.In ourview, activity,thereby making conceptual this assumeddirectlink betweenthe social processof reflectivediscourseandindiis vidualpsychologicalprocessof reflectiveabstraction too strong.We insteadconthatchildren'sparticipation this type of discourseconstitutesconditions in jecture learning,butthatit does not inevitablyresultin for thepossibilityof mathematical eachchildreorganizing orhermathematical his & (cf. activity Cobb,Jaworski, Presmeg, the 1996). In this formulation, link betweendiscourseandpsychologicalprocesses is like reflective abstraction indirect.This perspectiveacknowledgesthatboththe process of mathematicallearning and its products, increasingly sophisticated mathematical ways of knowing, are social throughand through.However, it also as understandings emphasizesthatchildrenactively constructtheirmathematical link this in socialprdcesses. emphasize indirect between To theyparticipate classroom the individualandcollective aspectsof mathematical development,we distinguish and betweenthepsychologicalprocessof reflectiveabstraction the communalactivof collective reflection that occurs as children participatein reflective disity course. Thus, in the case of the sample episode, we infer that the children the collectivelyreflectedon theirprioractivityof generating possibleways the moncouldbe in the two trees.However,inferencesaboutthe reflectiveabstractions keys childrenmighthave madewhile parthat andconceptualreorganizations particular in the sample episode requirea detailedpsychological analysis. ticipating This discussionof collective reflectionquestionsthe view thatthe childrenwere We that their thinking. furmerelycarried alongby a discourse determined individual to therhighlightthe children'sagencyby notingthatthey contributed the shiftsthat asked in for occurred thediscourse. Consider, example,theoccasionwhentheteacher all the childrenif therewas a way thattheycouldbe surethey hadgenerated theposthat sibilities.It was at thisjuncture Jordan involvingthe same pairedup possibilities the In he number combinations. givingthisexplanation, reflectedon andreorganized in class's prioractivityas recorded the table.Hadnone of the childrenbeen able to respondto the teacher'squestionin this way, the shift in discoursewould not have to to childrencontributed the It reasonable say thatindividual occurred. is therefore and developmentof the discoursethatsupported sustainedcollective reflection.

Paul Cobb,Ada Boufi, Kay McClain,Joy Whitenack

265

REFLECTIVE DISCOURSEAND MATHEMATICAL LEARNING We havetakencareto clarifythattheproposed betweenreflectivedisrelationship course and conceptualdevelopmentin mathematics speculative.In considering is whatchildren we between mightlearnwhentheyengagein suchdiscourse, distinguish of and (b) the generalori(a) theirconstruction specific mathematical conceptions entationto mathematical in activitythatparticipation the discoursemightfoster. ConceptualDevelopmentin Discourse With regardto the first of these two issues, thereis some indicationthatthe discussions of partitioning were productivefor some of the children.The partitioning was repeated themonkeys-and-trees in the activity setting dayafterthe sampleepisode, andthenagain3 weeks laterusingthe settingof a double-decker (vandenBrink, bus weretoldthattherewere,say, tenpassengers a doubledecker on 1989).The children bus and were asked to decide how many could be on the top deck andhow many couldbe on the bottomdeck.On bothdays, the teacherrecorded children'ssugthe of theirproposals pairsbecameanexplicit into gestions,andthepossibility organizing topic of conversation.On the second day, the childrenwere also askedto complete an activity sheet thatinvolved generatingpartitionsfor the the double-deckerbus problem.Of the 16 childrenpresent,8 consistentlygeneratedcommutativepairs and 3 producedmore sophisticatedorganizations.For a task involving 7 passengers, the possibilities included

7 and 7

0
where

7 0 signified 7 people on the top deck of the bus andnone on the bottomdeck. No discerniblepatterns could be detectedin the writtenworkof the remaining5 children.

266

ReflectiveDiscourse and CollectiveReflection

Significantly, 4 of these latterchildren were among the 5 who had been unable to use their fingers as perceptual substitutes in the September interviews. It therefore seems importantto consider how these children might have interthe pretedthepriorwhole-classdiscussions.Possibly,they did notreorganize results of prioractivity when they attemptedto understandwhat other childrenand the teacherwere saying anddoing (cf. Steffe, Firth,& Cobb, 1981). For them,the discourse might have been aboutfinding ways the monkeys could be in the trees or the passengers could be on the bus, per se. It should be noted that this possibility would constitute an advance when compared with their activity in the Septemberinterviews. The analysis thechildren's of written workservesto emphasize further although that in reflectivediscoursesupportsandenablesindividualreflectionon, participation and reorganization prioractivity, it does not cause it, determineit, or generate of, it. Thus, in the view we are advancing,it is the individualchild who has to do the and whileparticipating andcontributing the development in to reflecting reorganizing of the discourse.This impliesthatthe discourseandthe associatedcommunalactivand activity of collectivereflectionbothsupport areconstituted the constructive by ities of individualchildren. TheDevelopmentof a Mathematizing Orientation We can addressthe second aspect of the students'learning-their generalorientationto mathematical activity-by consideringan episode thatoccurredin the same classroomalmost5 monthsafterthe first.The instructional activitiesused at the time of the secondsampleepisodewere designedto support children'sstructhe of turingof numbersup to 100 into compositeunits,particularly ten andone. One of the anchoringsituationsthatthe teacherhad previouslyintroducedwas thatof Mrs. Wright'scandy shop, where loose candies were packedinto rolls of ten. To introduce this particularinstructionalactivity, the teacher explained that Mrs. when she was countingout candies and puttingthem into Wrightwas interrupted rolls. She then posed the following question: if and themintorolls. Teacher: What Mrs.Wright 43 piecesof candy sheis packing has of have43 pieces candy-howmany rolls What different that might are ways she The discussion proceededsmoothly, in thatthe children,as a group,generated the various possibilities with little apparentdifficulty. Their contributionswere as follows:
Sarah*: Fourrolls and threepieces. Elizabeth*: Forty-three pieces. Kendra: She might have two rolls and 23 pieces. Darren: She could have threerolls, 12 pieces, I mean 13 pieces.

what'sone way she mightfindthem? andhow manypiecesmightshe have?Sarah,

Linda*: Onerolland33 pieces. The teacherfor her partrecordedeach of theirsuggestionson a boardas shown in Figure 3.

Paul Cobb,Ada Boufi, Kay McClain,Joy Whitenack

267

4r

3p

of

43p
00000 0 0000
0000 0000 f

2r
00l

23p

OO o
O0

8888 0000
3r 13p 1r 33p

8O

00
0
0

0000
OO0
000

888

Figure 3. The teacher'srecordof the students'suggestions

Karenthen indicatedthat she had somethingshe wantedto say and went to the boardat the frontof the room.
Karen: Well, see, we've done all the ways. We had 43 pieces.... Teacher: OK.

Karen:

here to And,see,wehad43 pieces[points 43p]and right wehavenonerolls,and to rightherewe haveoneroll[points Ir 33p] 43p].

Teacher: OK, I'm going to numberthese, there's one way ... no rolls [writes"0"next to And there's one roll, there's 2 rolls, then there's 3, and there's 4. Karen: Teacher: [Numbersthe corresponding pictures 1, 2, 3, 4].

This exchange is reminiscentof the first episode in thatboth concernthe possible ways of partitioninga specified collection. However, a crucial difference betweenthe two episodesconcernsthejustifications given for the claimthatall possibilitieshadbeen found.In the firstepisode,Elizabethexplainedthatshe could not think of any more ways. It was not until the teacherasked the childrenhow they couldknowfor surethattheyhadfoundall theways thatthe discourse movedbeyond what might be termedempiricalarguments.In contrast,Karenjustified her claim the that withoutprompting. Thus,almost by ordering possibilities hadbeen generated the discourseshiftedfromgenerating possibleways the candiesmight the seamlessly, be packedto operatingon the resultsof thatgenerativeactivity. As the exchangecontinued,it becameapparent manyotherchildrentook the that needto produce ordering self-evident. joinedKaren theboard proposed an as Jan at and an alternativeway of numberingthe pictures:

268

ReflectiveDiscourse and CollectiveReflection

I thinkyou shouldnumber them,like putthemin order.Likethatone first[points to 43p], then thatone [ir 33p]. Teacher: [Erasesthe 0 next to 43p and writes 1] Call this numbertwo [ir 33p]? Jan: 'Cause that's the first way [43p], 'cause it's no rolls. Teacher: OK. [Writes2 and 3 next to Ir 33p and 2r 23p, respectively.] However, at this point, Jan began to focus on the numberof rolls in each configuration rather than on the order that each configuration would be produced when packing candy and eventually said that she was confused. Another child, Casey, said that he thought he knew what Jan meant and joined her and Karen at the board. She means like there's none righthere [43p] and that's [number]one, andthen there's one [roll]righthere [ir 33p], thatmakes [number]2; there's two [rolls] right here [2r 23p], that makes [number]3; there's three [rolls] right here [3r 13p], thatmakes [number]four; and there's four [rolls] rightthere [4r 3p]; thatmakes [number]five. Teacher: [Labelsthe configurationsas Casey speaks.] Because that'sthe firstone [43p], that'sthe second [ir 33p] one, that'sthe third Casey: [2r 23p].... Jan: No, I thinkthatshould be the third[3r 13p]. I'm not countingrolls. Casey: Casey:

Jan:

As the exchangecontinued,it becameincreasinglyevidentthatJan,Karen,and a thirdchild,Anna*,on one side, andCaseyon the otherside weretalkingpasteach other.Jan,Karen,andAnna* repeatedthattheirnumberingscheme was based on the numberof rolls, and Casey continuedto protestthathe was not countingrolls.
At this juncture, the teacher intervened and initiated a final shift in the discourse. She first explained Jan, Karen, and Anna's approach, stressing that "the way that they were thinking about numbering them and naming them was by how many rolls that they used to make 43 candies." I wasn'tcountingthe rolls, I was countinghow they went in order.Like thatone was the first one, and thatone was the second one. [Severalchildrenindicatedthey disagreedor did not understand.] I wasn't countingthe rolls. I wasn't going like "one roll, two rolls, threerolls, Casey: four rolls." Teacher: OK, Casey, now let me say whatyou were saying and you listen to me and see if I say whatyou said. [Addressesthe class.] Now whatit meansis thatthereare two differentways of namingthem. Casey:

for Shethenwenton to contrast rationales thetwoapproaches, the that stressing "Casey was talking about namingthema different the to just way."Janinterrupted teacher say,
"Now I understand,"and then spontaneously explained Casey's approach herself. Two major shifts in the discourse can be discerned in this second episode. In the first, the various partitionings of 43 candies that the children generated were objectified and treated as entities that could be ordered. In the second shift, the activity of orderingthe configurationsitself became an explicit topic of conversation.To the extent that the children participated in these shifts, they could be said to be engaging in the activityof mathematizing.The firstof these shifts in which the partitioningswere treated

Paul Cobb,Ada Boufi, Kay McClain,Joy Whitenack

269

This suggeststhatthe genas entitieswas relativelyroutinefor manyof thechildren. weredevelopingwhentheyparticipated reflectivedisin the eralorientation children In we coursewas thatof mathematizing. this regard, note with Bauersfeld(1995): is in of classroom participating a culture in Participating theprocesses a mathematics can and The of mathematizing. many skills,whichanobserver identify willtakeas the of form surface mainperformance theculture, theprocedural only.Thesearethebricks is at of thebuilding, thedesignof thehouseof mathematizingprocessed another but is the level.As it is withculture, coreof whatis learned through participationwhento
comes enculturation do what andhow to do it .... The core partof school mathematics

and intoeffecton themeta-level is "learned" indirectly. 460) (p.

Ourconjectureis that a crucial aspect of what is currentlycalled a mathematical disposition(NationalCouncilof Teachersof Mathematics,1991) is developed in in this indirectmanneras childrenparticipate reflective classroomdiscourse. SYMBOLIZINGAND THE TEACHER'SROLE how participation reflectivediscoursemightsupin Thusfar,we have considered students' mathematicallearning. In doing so, we have conjecturedabout port both specific conceptualdevelopmentsthatinvolve the transitionfrom process to The of orientation. notion objectandthe moregeneraldevelopment a mathematizing of reflectivediscoursealso helps clarifycertainaspectsof the teacher'srole. In our view, one of the primaryways in which teacherscan proactivelysupportstudents' mathematical developmentis to guide and, as necessary,initiateshifts in the discourse such thatwhat was previouslydone in actioncan become an explicit topic of conversation.This was exemplified in the first episode when the teacherinitiateda shiftbeyondwhatwe termedempirical verification asking,"Istherea way by thatwe could be sureand know thatwe've gotten all the ways [thatfive monkeys could be in the two trees]?"The ensuingshift in the discoursethatoccurredcan be in viewed as an interactional accomplishment thatit also dependedon the contriThe butionmadeby one of thechildren, Jordan. rolethattheteacher's question played in this exchange was, in effect, thatof an invitation,or an offer, to step back and reorganizewhat had been done thus far.' It is important clarifythatinitiatingandguidingthe developmentof reflective to discourserequiresconsiderablewisdom andjudgmenton the teacher' part.One s can, for example, imagine a scenarioin which a teacherpersists in attemptingto a initiate shiftin thediscourse whennoneof the students that gives a response involves reflectionon prioractivity.The very realdangeris, of course,thatan intended occasion forreflectivediscoursewill degenerate a social guessinggamein whichstuinto dentstryto inferwhattheteacher wantsthemto sayanddo (cf.Bauersfeld, 1980;Voigt, In lightof thispossibility,the teacher'srolein initiating shiftsin the discourse 1985).
'Itcan be arguedthatthe instructional activitiesshouldbe modifiedso thatthe need to "knowfor sure" arises in an apparentlyspontaneousway. However, as a practicalmatter, this ideal is not always obtainable.It is thereforeessentialthatthe teacherbe prepared takethe initiativein facilitatingshifts to in the discourse.

270

ReflectiveDiscourse and CollectiveReflection

of to in children participate theobjeccan mightbe thought as probing assesswhether of tification whattheyarecurrently Sucha formulation s the doing. acknowledges teacher' rolein guidingthedevelopment reflective of discourse whilesimultaneously proactive boththatsuchdiscourse aninteractional is and stressing accomplishment thatstudents have to makean active contribution its development. to necessarily A secondaspectof the teacher's apparent bothepisodesis theway in which in role she developedsymbolicrecordsof the children'scontributions. course,one can Of a scenarioin which ways of notatingcould themselveshave been a topic imagine for explicit negotiation.For our purpose,the crucialpoint is not who initiatedthe of schemes,butthe fact thatthe recordsgrew out of studevelopment the notational dents'activity a bottom-up in manner Gravemeijer, press),andthattheyappeared in (cf. to play an important role in facilitatingcollective reflectionon thatprioractivity. We can clarify both the influence of the recordsand theirsupportiverole by consideringthe first of the two episodes. There,the influence of the table the teacher first madewhile recordingthe children'scontributions becameapparent duringthe following exchange:
Linda*: Five [monkeys]could be in the big one.

Teacher: OK,five couldbe in thebigone [writes andthenhowmanywouldbe in the 5] littleone? Linda*: Zero.
Teacher: [Writes0.]

askedLindahow manymonkeyswere in the small Here,the teacherpresumably in Linda'sproposal thetable.Inotherwords,the treeonly becauseshe was recording Laterin the episode,the table influencedwhatcountedas a completecontribution. facilitatedthe processof empiricallycheckingwhetherparticular table greatly parThiswas thefirstoccasion beenproposed. titioningsof thefive monkeyshadalready when entriesin the tablewere pointedto, and spokenof, as signs thatsignifiedvarof relation Kaput, iouspartitionings. therewas a reversal thesignifier-signified Thus, (cf. his approach pairing partitionings, pointed of the he whenJordan 1991).Later, explained to to the tableentriesas he spoke aboutmonkeysin trees.In doing so, he appeared to about thetable entries see thepartitionings whichhe spoke. lookthrough Thus,although betweenthe signifiedandsignifier,thetableentries we as observerscan distinguish for the andthevarious partitionings, two seemedto be inseparable himin thatthetable of monkeys. entriesmeantparticular partitionings We could give a similaraccountof the role that the picturesof candies played in the second episode. Thereagain,the distinctionbetween signified and signifier as to appeared be reversedin the courseof the episode.Further, in the firstepisode, shiftsin the discoursewere accompanied changesin thefunctionof the symbolic by recordsuntil, eventually,the recordsbecame explicit objectsof discoursethatthe childrenlooked throughto see the prioractivitythatthe recordssymbolized.Both here and in the first episode, the importantrole attributedto symbolization is educationdevelopedby highly compatiblewith the theoryof realisticmathematics and Freudenthal his collaborators Treffers, 1987; Streefland,1991). It is also (cf. s consistentwith the resultsof Sfard' (1991) historicalanalyses,which indicatethat

Paul Cobb,Ada Boufi, Kay McClain,Joy Whitenack

271

has role of the development ways of notating repeatedly playeda central in the mathematician'stransitionfrom processlikeoperativeconceptionsto objectlikestructural conceptions. This is not to say, however, that either the development of leadto changesin individual ways of symbolizingor changesin discourseinevitably students'thinking.We further clarifyourpositionon this issue in the next section. THE INDIVIDUALIN DISCOURSE between discussion reflective our of discourse Vygotsky' and s There strong are parallels (1978) sociohistorical analysisof development.The readermightthereforeassume thatthe analysiswe have presentedis a straightforward elaboration Vygotsky's of we position. To guardagainstthis interpretation, take Vygotsky's workas a point of contrast.Althoughwe will emphasizedifferencesin perspectives,the intellectual debt we owe Vygotsky shouldbe readily apparent. have, in fact, refined We our position by engaging in an argumentwith the voice of Vygotsky as expressed in his writings. Vygotsky emphasized two primary influences on conceptual development, social interaction semioticmediation(cf. van derVeer & Valsiner,1991).With and relations interare regardto the firstof theseinfluences,he positedthatinterpersonal nalized from the interpsychologicalplane and reconstitutedto form the intrapsychological plane of psychological functions.Ourspeculationthatthe first graders orientation they participated reflectivediscourse as in developed a mathematizing to exemplify processof internalization theinterpersonal this from domain mightappear to the psychologicaldomain.The readercouldtherefore concludethatwe have followed Vygotsky in contendingthatthe childreninternalized distinctiveaspectsof this collective activity. In our discussionof reflectivediscourse,we also addressed secondinfluence the on conceptualdevelopmentconsideredby Vygotsky, thatof semiotic mediation. Here again, Vygotsky gave social and culturalprocesses priorityover individual cultural tools psychologicalprocesses.He arguedthatin the courseof development, such as oral andwrittenlanguageareinternalized become psychologicaltools and for thinking Rogoff, 1990).In thetwo episodes,the meansof notating teacher the (cf. used to recordthe children'scontributions could be characterized culturaltools, as andthe changesthatoccurred the role playedby the symbolscouldbe interpreted in as stepsin thisinternalization Onemight,in fact,be tempted followLeont'ev to process. the toolsintroduced theteacher. (1981)andtalkof thestudents appropriating cultural by In such an account,the ways of notatingwould be treatedas objective mediators that served to carrymathematical meaningfrom one generationto the next. Before differentiating positionfromthatof Vygotsky,we muststressthatwe our do agree with many of the centraltenets of his theory.For example,we agree that children's mathematicaldevelopmentis profoundlyinfluencedboth by the faceto-face interactionsand by the culturalpractices in which they participate.In addition,we believe thatVygotsky was right when he contendedthatthinkingis inextricably bound up with the cultural tools that are used (cf. Dirfler, 1996;

272

ReflectiveDiscourse and CollectiveReflection

Kaput,1991; Thompson,1992). Thus, as Lesh and Lamon(1992) note, it is difficult for us to imaginehow the world mighthave been experiencedbefore the conceptualmodels andassociatednotationschemesthatwe now takefor grantedwere developed.The issue at handis not, therefore,thatof determiningwhethersocial andcultural processesinfluenceindividual psychologicalprocesses.Instead,it concerns the specific natureof the relationshipbetween these two domains,and it is here thatwe departfrom Vygotskiantheory. that of are from, Vygotsky(1978) argued thequalities mentaldevelopment derived of of andgeneratedby, the distinctiveproperties the sociocultural organization the activitiesin which the individualparticipates (van Oers, 1996).The linkagehe prois between twodomains therefore direct (cf.Cobb, the a one & Jaworski, Presmeg, posed it will be recalled, is the relationthatwe questionedwhen we intro1996). This, of ducedthe notionof collectivereflection.The acceptance thisrelationimpliesthat attitudecan be accountedfor directly children'sdevelopmentof a mathematizing in termsof theirparticipation reflective discourse,withoutthe need to referto in theirindividualconstructive activities.Elsewhere,we have notedthatthis approach emphasizesthe social and culturalbasis of personalexperience (Cobb, 1995). In to our view, it is an appropriate approach take when addressinga varietyof issues including those that pertain to diversity and the restructuringof the school. howout our Therefore, intentis not to rejectthis approach of hand.We do question, ever, the explanatorypower it providesin addressingthe issues underdiscussion in this article. What is requiredis an analytical approachthat is fine-grained enough to account for qualitativedifferences in individual children's thinking in even as they participate the same collective activities (cf. Confrey, 1995). The relevance of this criterion became apparentduring the discussion of the first to did that episodewhenwe observed 5 of the 16 children notappear havereorganized This indicatesthatthe thinkingof some childrenbut not activity. priorpartitioning othersreflectedthe organizationof the social activity in which they participated. socialandpsychological between for an Ourrationale positing indirect processes linkage is thereforepragmaticand derivesfrom our desireto accountfor such differences in individualchildren'sactivity. As we have noted, this view implies thatparticipationin an activitysuch as reflective discourseconstitutesthe conditionsfor the do who actually thelearning. of but Participation possibility learning, it is the students in reflective discourse,therefore,can be seen both to enable and constrainmathematicaldevelopment,but not to determineit. Given the currentinterest in the philosophy and pedagogy of John Dewey (1926), we close this discussion of the relation between individual and social processes by noting thatthe position we have outlinedis closer to thatof Dewey thanto Vygotsky (1978). For Dewey, as for Vygotsky, learningwas a process of into growing and changingtraditionsof practice.However, Dewey enculturation also stressed the contributionsof actively interpretingstudents. Similarly, we to to that have attempted illustrate studentscontribute the developmentof the comthat The munalactivitiesin whichtheyparticipate. followingsummary Dewey gave of his position has a remarkably ring to it: contemporary

Paul Cobb,Ada Boufi, Kay McClain,Joy Whitenack

273

of constitute"tradition," a and standards thecalling methods working and Thecustoms, into is of are initiation thetradition themeans whichthepowers learners released by to But also anddirected. we should haveto saythattheurgeorneedof anindividual in of is beinga factor his prerequisite thetradition's joinin anundertakinga necessary in and growth powerandfreedom; alsothathe hasto see on his ownbehalf personal and achieved. between means methods and in and hisownwaytherelations employed results the else although right Nobody cansee forhimandhe can'tsee byjustbeing"told," he kindof telling guidehisseeingandthushelphimseewhat needsto see.(1926, may 1991,p. 505) Quoted Westbrook, by p. 57;italicsin original. DISCOURSEON DISCOURSE Thus far, we have placed our analysis of reflective discoursein a broadertheoretical context by contrasting it with Vygotskian theory. We now relate it to discussionof discoursein reformclassrooms.Lampert (1990) influential Lampert's of derivesher vision of the ideal formof classroomdiscoursefrom a consideration on as mathematics a discipline. (1976)andP6lya(1954), Drawing particularly Lakatos is she arguesthatthe discourseof mathematicians characterized a zig-zag from by One of the to an examination premisesthrough use of counter-examples. conjectures of herprimary is to investigatewhetherit is possible for studentsto engage in goals of mathematical activitycongruentwith this portrayal disciplinarydiscourse.As a for the most part,on how the teacherand studentsinterconsequence,herfocus is, We act as they talk aboutand do mathematics. will suggest thatour discussionof this and reflectivediscoursecomplements workby focusingon whatthe teacher studentscreateindividually collectivelyin thecourseof suchinteractions. and howFirst, ever, we tease out furtheraspectsof Lampert'sanalysis. We note with Billig (1987) that a zig-zag between the general and the particular, or between conjecturesand refutations,is not specific to mathematics,but is of A characteristic argumentation general. further in (1990)analyaspectof Lampert's sis differentiates mathematical scientificdiscourse and fromotherkindsof discourse. She gives particular emphasisto threemaximsthatP61ya(1954) believedareessential when making "a ready ascent from observations to generalizations,and a to readydescentfrom the highest generalizations the most concreteobservations" courageandintellectual honestyneeded (p. 7). Thesemaximsconcernthe intellectual to revise a belief when thereis a good reasonto changeit, andthe wise restraint that shouldbe exercisedso thatbeliefs arenot changedwantonlyandwithoutgood reason. Significantly, thesemaximsandthe related vision of classroom discourse appear to correspondclosely to four commitmentsthatBereiter(1992) contendsare centralto scientific discourseand make scientific progresspossible: 1. A commitmentto work towardcommon understanding satisfactoryto all; 2. A commitment to frame questions and propositions in ways that enable evidence to be broughtto bearon them; 3. A commitmentto expandthe body of collectively valid propositions;and

274

ReflectiveDiscourse and CollectiveReflection

4. A commitment allow anybeliefto be subjected criticism it will advance to if to the discourse.(p. 8) Bereiter contends that these four commitmentsdistinguish mathematicaland scientific discourse from other forms of discourse, including philosophical, legal, and political discourse. His analysis therefore substantiatesLampert's claim thatshe is teachingher studentsto "acton the basis of whatP61lya calls 'the moral qualities of the scientist"' (1990, p. 58). In this respect, her analysis makes an importantcontribution. In considering substance classroom the of we discourse, observewithGravemeijer as (in press)thatLampert (1990) takespuremathematics hermodelwhen she draws on Lakatos(1976) and P61lya (1954). Gravemeijer arguesthat appliedmathematics can also be an important sourceof analogieswhen attention centerson students' mathematical at the elementaryschool level. In develdevelopment,particularly oping this analogy, he suggests that of discussion about interpretation situation is the of the in sketched the part a [classroom] contextual Another of thediscussion focuses theadequacy on and [applied] problem. part theefficiency various of solution This a of towards procedures. canimplicateshift attention a reflection thesolution on from added.] procedure a mathematical of view.[Emphasis point This sketch is highly compatiblewith our accountof reflective discourse.The two sample episodes both focus on what Gravemeijer would call context problems and involve shifts that lead to the development of collective reflection. Consequently, whereas Lampert's primaryconcern is with the commitments that make progress possible as arguments zig-zag from conjectures to as refutations,we are more interestedin the process of mathematization it occurs in the course of such discussions. It is in this sense that we suggest the two approaches are complementary. CONCLUSIONS the Throughout discussion, we have suggestedthatthe notion of reflective discourse is of interestfor both pragmaticand theoreticalreasons.Pragmatically, an their analysisof reflectivediscourseclarifieshow teachers mightproactively support students'mathematical developmentin ways compatiblewith recentreformrecommendations. thereforehas implicationsfor in- and preserviceteacherdevelIt opment.In this regard,we have used the notionof reflectivediscourseto guide the when preparing cases for teacher editingof classroomvideorecordings hypermedia development(Goldmanet al., 1994). This notion also proveduseful when developing instructionalactivities both in collaborationwith the first-gradeteacher andat otherclassroomresearch sites.In particular, instructional sequenceswerefrequentlydesigned so thatit mightbe possible for the teacherto initiateshifts in the discourseby capitalizingon the students'mathematical contributions. we in Theoretically, have arguedthatreflectivediscourseis a usefulconstruct that it suggests possible relationshipsbetween classroomdiscourseandmathematical

Paul Cobb,Ada Boufi, Kay McClain,Joy Whitenack

275

development.This issue is of considerablesignificancegiven the emphasisplaced on discourse in currentreform recommendations.It is, however, importantto acknowledgethatreflective discourseis a sociological construct.The delineation of shiftsin classroomdiscoursetracesdevelopmentsin the practicesestablished by the classroom community. Therefore, analyses are needed that systematically with detailedanalysesof indiaccountsof suchcommunal coordinate developments as theyparticipate andcontribute shifts vidualstudents'mathematical to, in, activity in the discourse.This, in ourview, is a productiveavenuefor further investigation.
REFERENCES Bauersfeld, H. (1980). Hidden dimensions in the so-called reality of a mathematics classroom. EducationalStudies in Mathematics,11, 23-41. classroom-their functionandthe eduBauersfeld,H. (1995). "Language games"in the mathematics Interaction In cationof teachers. P. Cobb& H. Bauersfeld (Eds.),Theemergence mathematical of meaning: in classroom cultures(pp. 271-291). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bereiter,C. (1992, April). Implicationsof postmodernism science education:Science as progresfor sive discourse. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. A to New York:Cambridge and approach socialpsychology. Billig,M. (1987).Arguing thinking: rhetorical UniversityPress. on develand Cobb,P. (1995). Whereis the mind?Constructivist sociocultural perspectives mathematical opment.EducationalResearcher,23(7), 13-21. and K., Cobb, P., Gravemeijer, Yackel, E., McClain,L., Whitenack,J. (in press).Mathematizing symbolizing: The emergenceof chains of significationin one first-gradeclassroom.In D. Kirschner& and J. A. Whitson Social,semiotic, neurological Hillsdale, (Eds.),Situated perspectives. cognition theory: NJ: Erlbaum. on and B., Cobb,P., Jaworski, & Presmeg,N. (1996). Emergent sociocultural perspectives mathematical activity. In P. Nesher, L. Steffe, P. Cobb, G. Goldin, & B. Greer(Eds.), Theoriesof mathematical learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cobb, P., Wood, T., & Yackel, E. (1993). Discourse, mathematical thinking,and classroompractice. In N. Minick,E. Forman,& A. Stone (Eds.), Educationand mind:Institutional,social, and developmentalprocesses. Oxford,England:OxfordUniversityPress. are sociocultural and Confrey,J. (1995). How compatible radicalconstructivism, approaches, social conin structivism?In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism education(pp.185-225). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. and Dewey, J. (1926/1981-1989). Individuality experience.In J. A. Boydston(Ed.), John Dewey: The later works, 1925-1953. Carbondale, SouthernIllinois UniversityPress. IL: Ddrfler,W. (1996). Computeruse and views of the mind. In C. Keitel & K. Ruthven(Eds.), Learning from computers:Mathematicseducationand technology.New York:SpringerVerlag. Dubinsky, E. (1991). Reflective abstractionin advanced mathematicalthinking. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advancedmathematicalthinking(pp. 95-123). Dordrecht,The Netherlands: Kluwer. in Forman,E. (1996). Formsof participation classroompractice:Implicationsfor learningmathematics. In P. Nesher, L. Steffe, P. Cobb,G. Goldin, & B. Greer(Eds.), Theoriesof mathematicallearning (pp. 115-130). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. H. Reidel. Freudenthal, (1973). Mathematicsas an educationaltask. Dordrecht,The Netherlands: Goldman, Barron, Bassler, Cobb,P., Bowers,J.,McClain, Robinson, St. Clair, Harwood, E., L., O., K., C., J., in J. and J.,& Altman, (1994).Investigations teaching Nashville, [CD-ROM computer geometry program]. in TN. (Provided association National with ScienceFoundation Grants TPE-8751472, No. TPE-8950310, TPE-9053826, and TPE-9154067.) Gravemeijer,K. (in press). Mediatingbetween concreteand abstract.In T. Nunes & P. Bryant(Eds.), How do childrenlearn mathematics?Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

276

ReflectiveDiscourse and CollectiveReflection

view of simple Gray,E. M., & Tall, D. D. (1994). Duality, ambiguity,and flexibility: A "proceptual" arithmetic. Journalfor Research in MathematicsEducation,25, 116-146. conHarel,G., & Kaput,J. J. (1991). The role of conceptualentitiesin buildingadvancedmathematical cepts andtheirsymbols. In D. Tall (Ed.),Advancedmathematicalthinking(pp. 82-94). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. J.J. (1991).Notations representations mediators constructive and as of In Kaput, processes. E. von Glasersfeld in The Netherlands: Kluwer. (Ed.), Constructivism mathematicseducation(pp. 53-74). Dordrecht, Lakatos,I. (1976). Proofs and refutations.Cambridge,MA: CambridgeUniversityPress. Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching.AmericanEducationalResearchJournal, 27(1), 29-63. Leont'ev, A. N. (1981). The problemof activity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch(Ed.), Theconceptof activity in Sovietpsychology. Armonk,NY: Sharpe. mathematical In Lesh,R., & Lamon,S. (1992). Assessingauthentic performance. R. Lesh & S. J. Lamon (Eds.),Assessmentof authenticperformancein school mathematics (pp. 17-62). Washington,DC: AmericanAssociation for the Advancementof Science. Mason, J. (1989). Mathematicalabstractionas the result of a delicate shift of attention.For the Learningof Mathematics,9(2), 2-8. NationalCouncilof Teachersof Mathematics. (1991). Professionalstandards teachingmathematics. for Reston, VA: Author. Piaget, J. (1972). Theprinciples of genetic epistemology.London:Routledge& Kegan Paul. it How can we characterize and Pirie, S., & Kieren,T. (1994). Growthin mathematical understanding: how can we representit? EducationalStudies in Mathematics,26, 61-86. P61ya,G. (1954). Inductionand analogy in mathematics.Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversityPress. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeshipin thinking: Cognitive developmentin social context. Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress. Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematicalconceptions: Reflections on processes and objects as differentsides of the same coin. EducationalStudiesin Mathematics,22, 1-36. Educational L. Sfard,A., & Linchevski, (1994). The gainsandpitfallsof reification-the case of algebra. Studies in Mathematics,26, 87-124. J., E., Steffe,L. P., von Glasersfeld, Richards, & Cobb,P. (1983). Children's countingtypes:Philosophy, theory,and application.New York:PraegerScientific. unit Steffe, L. P., Firth,D., & Cobb,P. (1981). On the natureof countingactivity:Perceptual items.For the Learningof Mathematics,1(2), 13-21. A research. L. education. paradigm developmental Streefland, (1991).Fractionsin realisticmathematics of Dordrecht,The Netherlands:Kluwer. Contributions the effective use of to Thompson,P. W. (1992). Notations,principles,and constraints: in mathematics. Journal Researchin Mathematics concretemanipulatives elementary Education, for 23, 123-147. and Thompson,A. G., Philipp,R. A., Thompson,P. W., & Boyd, B. A. (1994). Calculational concepin In mathematics. D. B. Aichele(Ed.),Professional tualorientations teaching Development Teachers for of of The (pp. of Mathematics, 1994 Yearbook theNationalCouncilof Teachers Mathematics 79-92). Reston, VA: NationalCouncil of Teachersof Mathematics. instrucTreffers,A. (1987). Threedimensions:A modelof goal and theorydescriptionin mathematics Reidel. tion-the WiskobasProject. Dordrecht,The Netherlands: van den Brink,F. J. (1989). Realistischrekenonderwijs aanjonge kinderer.Utrecht,The Netherlands: Utrecht. & Centrum, Rijksuniversiteit Wiskundeonderwijs Onderwijscomputer VakgroepOnderzoek A van der Veer, R., & Valsiner,J. (1991). UnderstandingVygotsky: questfor synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. as van Oers,B. (1996). Learningmathematics meaningfulactivity.In P. Nesher,L. Steffe, P. Cobb,G. Goldin,& B. Greer(Eds.), Theoriesof mathematical learning(pp. 91-114). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum. in education: G. psychologyandresearch mathematics Vergnaud, (1982). Cognitiveanddevelopmental Some theoreticaland methodologicalissues. For the Learningof Mathematics,3(2), 31-41. Voigt, J. (1985). Patterns and routines in classroom interaction. Recherches en Didactique des 6, Mathematiques, 69-118. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. UniversityPress. Cambridge,MA: Harvard

Paul Cobb, Ada Boufi, Kay McClain, Joy Whitenack

277

R. Westbrook, B. (1991). John Dewey andAmericandemocracy.Ithaca,NY: CornellUniversityPress. and Whitenack,J. W. (1995). Modeling,mathematizing, mathematicallearningas it is situatedin the classroom microculture.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,VanderbiltUniversity.

Authors
Paul Cobb, Professorof MathematicsEducation,PeabodyCollege, Box 330, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203; COBBP@CTRVAX.VANDERBILT.EDU of Ada Boufi, Assistant Professor Mathematics National Capodistrian and of Education, University Athens, of Street,Athens, Greece Pedagogics Department ElementaryEducation,33, Ippokratus in Education, Kay McClain,SeniorLecturer Mathematics Peabody College,Box 330, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203; MCCLAIKL@CTRVAX.VANDERBILT.EDU Joy Whitenack, AssistantProfessorof Education, Universityof Missouriat Columbia,212 Townsend SHOWME.MISSOURI.EDU Hall, Columbia,MO 65211; CIJW@