Where Is the Mind?

Constructivist and
Sociocultural Perspectives
on Mathematical Development
PAUL COBB

Currently, considerable debate focuses on whether mind is loca ping in a supermarket, selling candy on the street, and
ted in the head or in the individual-in-social-action, and whether packing crates in a dairy.
development is cognitive self-organization or enculturation into These constructivist and sociocultural perspectives at
established practices. In this article, I question assumptions that times appear to be in direct conflict, with adherents to each
initiate this apparent forced choice between constructivist and claiming hegemony for their view of what it means to
sociocultural perspectives. I contend thai the two perspectives know and learn mathematics (Steffe, in press; Voigt, 1992).
are complementary. Also, claims that either perspective captures Thus, there is currently a dispute over both whether the
1
the essence of people and communities should be refected for mind is located in the head or in the indiyidual-in-social-
pragmatic justifications that consider the contextual relevance action, and whether mathematical learning is primarily a
and usefulness of a perspective. I argue that the sociocultural process of active cognitive reorganization or a process of
perspective informs theories af the conditions for the possibility enculturation into a community of practice (Minick, 1989).
of learning, whereas theories developed from the constructivist Similarly, the issue of whether social and cultural processes
perspective focus on what students learn and the processes by hive primacy over individual processes, or vice versa, is
which they do so. the subject of intense debate (van Oers, 1990). Further, ad-
herents to the two positions differ on the role that signs
Educational Researcher, Vol. 23, No. 7, pp. 13-20
and symbols play in psychological development.Con-
structivists tend to characterize them as a means by which
students express and communicate their mathematical

T wo major trends can be identified in mathematics ed- thinking, whereas sociocultural theorists typically treat
ucation research during the past decade. Tne first is them as carriers of either"established mathematical mean-
the generally accepted view that students actively ings or of a practice's intellectual heritage. In generatrthe
construct their mathematical ways of knowing as they attempts of the two groups of theorists to understand the
strive to be effective by restoring coherence to the worlds other's position are confounded by their diifering; usage of
of their personal experience. The theoretical arguments a variety of terms, including activity, setting, context, task,
that underpin this position are primarily epistemological problem, goal, negotiation, and meaning.
and have been advanced by von Glasersfeld (1984, 1987,
The central focus_of.this article will be on the assump-
1989a). Empirical support is provided by numerous stud-
tions that give rise to an apparentiorced choice between
ies that document that there are significant qualitative dif-
the two perspectives. In particular, I will argue that math-
ferences in the understandings that students develop in
ematical learning should be viewed as both a process of ac-
instructional situations, and that these understandings are
tive individual construction and a process of enculturation
frequently very different from those that the teacher in-
into the mathematicaTpractices of wider society. The cen-
tends (Confrey, 1990; Hiebert & Carpenter, 1992). The ac-
tral issue is then not that of adjudicating a dispute between
ceptance of constructivism can be contrasted with a second
opposing perspectives. Instead, it is to explore ways of co-
trend that emphasizes the socially and culturally situated
ordiijating constructivist and sociocultural perspectives in
nature of mathematical activity. At least in the United
mathematics education. The particular perspective that
States, this attempt to go beyond purely cognitive analyses
comes to the fore at any point in an empirical analysis can
reflects a growing dlisillusionrnent with the individualistic
then be seen to be relative to the problems and issues at
focus of mainstream psychology (Brown, Collins, &
hand.
Duguid, 1989;Greeno, 1991; Schoenfeld, 1987). The theo-
retical basis for this position is inspired in large measure by It should be noted that the apparent conflict between
the work of Vygotsky and that of activity theorists such as constructivist and sociocultural perspectives is not merely
Davydov, Leont'ev, and Galperin (Nunes, 1992). Empirical a matter of theoretical contemplation. Instead, it finds ex-
support comes from paradigmatic studies such as those of pression in tensions endemic to the act of teaching. For ex-
Carraher, Carraher, and Schliemann (1985), Lave (1988),
Saxe (1991), and Scribner (1984), which demonstrate that
an individual's arithmetical activity is prafoundly influ-
enced by his or her participation in encompassing cultural PAUL COBB is Professor of Mathematics Education at Vanderbilt
practices such as completing worksheets in school, shop- University, Peabody College, Box 330, Nashville, TN 37203.
His specialization is mathematics education.

OCTOBER 1994 13
ample, Ball (1993) observes that "current proposals for ed- tools for thinking. In contrast, Leont'ev (1981) argued that
ucational improvement are replete with notions of 'under- thought develops from practical, object-oriented activity or
standing' and 'community'—about building bridges labor. Several American theorists have elaborated con-
between the experiences of the child and the knowledge of structs developed by Vygotsky and his students, and speak
the expert" (p. 374). She then inquires, of cognitive apprenticeship (Brown, Collins, & Duguid,
1989; Rogoff, 1990), legitimate peripheral participation
How do I create experiences for my students that connect (Forman, 1992; Lave & Wenger, 1991), or the negotiation of
with what they now know and care about but that also meaning in the construction zone (Newman, Griffin, &
transcend the present? How do I value their interests and Cole, 1989). In contrast to the constructivist's concern with
also connect them to ideas and traditions growing out of individual students' conceptual reorganizations, each of
centuries of mathematical exploration and invention? (p. these contemporary accounts locates learning in copartici-
375) pation in cultural practices. As a consequence, educational
implications usually focus on the kinds of social engage-
Ball's references to students' experiences and to valuing
ments that increasingly enable students to participate in
their interests imply a focus on their qualitatively distinct
the activities of the expert rather than on the cognitive
interpretations and on the personal goals that they pursue
processes and conceptual structures involved (Hanks,
in the classroom. This, in my terms, implies a view of
mathematical learning as active construction. In contrast, 1991).
her reference to students' mathematical heritage suggests a In cOTttr^sUo_sodocultur^Llheorists' frequent references
view of mathematical learning as enculturation. Ball goes to the works of Vygotsky, Leont'ev, and Luria, construc-
on to discuss three dilemmas that arise in the course of her tivistsjisualljOrace their inteUecJuaUineage to.Piaget's ge-
practice as a mathematics teacher. She clarifies that these netic epistemology (1970, 1980), to ethnomemocIoTogy
dilemmas of content, discourse, and community "arise rea- (Mehan & Wood, 1975), or to symbolic interaciionism
sonably from competing and worthwhile aims and from (Blumer, 1969). As this set of references indicates, it is pos-
the uncertainties inherent in striving to attain them" (p. sible to distinguish between whaUnight be called psycho-
373). It would therefore seem that the aims of which she logical and interactionist variants of constructivism. Von
speaks and thus the pedagogical dilemmas reflect the ten- Glasersf eld's development of the epigtemological basis of
sion between mathematical learning viewed as encultura- „ the psychological variant incorporates both the Piagetian
tion and as individual construction. / notions of assimilation and accommodation, and the cy-
bernetic concept of viability. Thus, he uses the term knowl-
Comparisons and Contrasts edge in "Piaget's adaptational sense to refer to those
Sociocultural and constructivist theorists both highlight sensory-motor and conceptuaT~operations that have
the crucial role that actiyity^laysinjnatherjaaiicMkarning proved viable in the knower's experience" (1992, p. 380).
and development. However, sociocultural theoristsjygt- Further, traditional correspondence theories of truth are
cally link activity to participation in culturally organized dispensed with in favor of an account that relates truth to
practices, whereas constructivists give-priority to indiyicU the effective or viable organization of activity: "Truths are
ual students' sensory-motoxjind conceptual activity. Fur- replaced by viable models—and viability is always relative
ther, sociocultural theorists tend to assume from the outset to a chosen goal" (1992, p. 384). In this model, perturba-
that cognitive processes are subsumed by social and cul- tions that the cognizing subject generates relative to a pur-
tural processes. In doing so, they adhere to Vygotsky's pose or goal are posited as the driving force of
(1979) contention that "the ^pcjal-dimeasion-of conscious- development. As a consequence, learning is characterized
ness is primary in fact and time. The individual dimension as a process of sglf-organization in which the subject reor-
of consciousness is derivative and secondary" (p. 30). From ganizes his or heTactivityTcreliminate perturbations (von
this, it follows that "thought (cognition) must not be re- Glasersf eld, 1989b). As von Glasersfeld notes, his instru-
duced to a subjectively psychological process" (Davydov, mentalist approach to knowledge is gejieially-£onsistejit
1988, p. 16). Instead, thought should be viewed as with the views of contemporary neopragmatist philoso-
phers such as Bernstein (1983), Putnam (1987), and Rorty
something essentially "on the surface," as something lo- (1978).
cated. . .on the borderline between the organism and the Although von Glasersield defines learning asjglf^ojga-
outside world. For thought. . .has a life only in an envi- nization, he acknowledges that this constru£tiy£^activity
ronment of socially constituted meanings. (Bakhurst, occurs as the cognizing individual interacts with other
1988, p. 38) members of a community. Thus, he elaborates that knowl-
Consequently, whereas constructivists analyze thought in edge refers to "conceptual structures that epistemic agents,
terms of conceptual processes located in the individual, so- given the range of present experience within their tradition
ciocultural theorists take the individual-in-social-action as of thought and language, consider -viable" (1992, p. 381).
their unit of analysis (Minick, 1989). From this latter per- Further, he contends that "the most frequent- source of
spective, the primary issue is that of explaining how par- perturbations for the developing cognitive subject is inter-
ticipation in social interactions and culturally organized action with others" (1989b, p. 136). Bauersfeki's inter-
actionist version of constructivism complements von
activities influences psychological development.
Glasersfeld's psychological focus in that both view com-
Sociocultural theorists formulatejhis issue in a variety of
munication as a process of mutual adaptation wherein in-
diffe^tways7T^FexampTe7%gotsky~n978) emphasized
dividuals negotiate meanings by continually modifying
the importance of social interaction with more knowledge- their interpretations (Bauersfeld, 1980; Bauersfeld,
able others in the"zlmel)Fplo3dmaTaevelopment and the Krummheuer, & Voigt, 1988). However, whereas von
role of culturally developed sign systems as psychological

14 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER
Glasersfeld tends to focus on individuals' construction of It is apparent from this brief_summary of the two_per-
their ways of knowing, Ranprsfeld_emphasizes thatjleam- spectives that they address different problems and issues.
ing is characterized by the subjectivejgconstructionof so- A sociocultural analysis of a classroom episode might both
cietal means and models through negotiation of meaning locate it within a broader activity system that takes account
in social interaction" (1988, p. 39). In accounting for this of the function of schooling as a social institution and at-
process of subjective reconstruction, he focuses on the tend to the immediate interactions between the teacher
teacher's and students' interactive constitution of the class- and students (Axel, 1992). This dual focus is explicit in
room microculture. Thus, he argues that Lave and Wenger's (1991) claim that their "concept of le-
gitimate peripheral participation provides a framework for
participating in the processes of a mathematics classroom bringing together theories of situated activity and theories
is participating in a cuji«r^^f_mathematizmg. The many about the production and reproduction of the social order"
skills, which an observer can identify and will take as the (p. 47). In general, sociocultural accounts of psychological
main performance of the culture, form the procedural development use the individual's participation in cultur-
surface only. These are the bricks of the building, but the ally organized practices and face-to-face interactions as
design of the house of mathematizing is processed on an- primary explanatory constructs. A basic tenet underpin-
other level. As it is with culture, the core of what is ning this work is that it is inappropriate to single out qual-
learned through participation is when to do what and how
to do it... .Thejcorejjart of school mathematics encultur- itative differences in individual thinking apart from their
ation comes into effect on the metajeye^and is "learned" sociocultural situation because differences in students' in-
indirectly, (in press) terpretations of school tasks reflect qualitative differences
in the communities in which they participate (Bredo & Mc-
Bauersfeld's reference to indirect learning clarifies that the Dermott, 1992).
occurrence of perturbations is not limited to those occa- In_cxmtrast, conaixuctiyists are typically concerned with
sions when participants in an interaction believe that com- the quality of individual interpretive activity, with the de-
munication has broken down and explicitly negotiate velopment of ways of knowing at a more micro-level, and
meanings. Instead, for him, communication is a process of with the participants' interactive constitution of classroom
often implicit negotiations in which subtle shifts and slides social norms and mathematical practices. The burden of
of meaning occur outside the participants' awareness (cf. explanation in constructivist accounts of development falls
Cobb & Yackel, in press). In taking this approach, Bauers- on models of individual students' cognitive self-organiza-
feld uses an interactionist metaphor and characterizes ne- tion and on analyses of the processes by which these
gotiation as a process of mutual adaptation in the course of actively cognizing individuals constitute the local social
which the teacher and students establish expectations for situation of their development (Cobb, Wood, & Yackel,
others' activity and obligations for their own activity (cf. 1993). Thus, whereas a sociocultural theorist might view
Cobb & Bauersfeld, in press; Voigt, 1985). By way of con- classroom interactions as an instantiation of the culturally
trast, Newman et al. (1989), speaking from the sociocul- organized practices of schooling, a constructivist would
tural perspective, define negotiation as a process of mutual see an evolving microculture that does not exist apart from
appropriation in which the teacher and students continu- the teacher's and students' attempts to coordinate their in-
ally coopt or use each others' contributions. Here, in line dividual activities. Further, whereas a sociocultural theo-
with Leont'ev's (1981) sociohistorical metaphor of appro- rist might see a student appropriating the teacher's
priation, the teacher's role is characterized as that of medi- contributions, a constructivist would see a student adapt-
ating between students' personal meanings and culturally ing to the actions of others in the course of ongoing nego-
established mathematical meanings of wider society. From tiations. In making these differing interpretations,
this point of view, one of the teacher's primary responsi- sociocultural theorists would tend to invoke sociohistorical
bilities when negotiating mathematical meaning with stu- metaphors such as appropriation, whereas constructivists
dents is to appropriate their actions into this wider system would typically employ interactionist metaphors such as
of mathematical practices. Bauersfeld, however, takes the accommodation and mutual adaptation. Further, whereas so-
local classroom microculture rather than the mathematical ciocultural theorists typically stress the homogeneity of
practices institutionalized by wider society as his primary members of established communities and eschew analyses
point of reference when he speaks of negotiation. This of qualitative differences in individual thinking, construc-
focus reflects his concern with the process by which the tivists tend to stress heterogeneity and to eschew analyses
teacher and students constitute social norms and mathe- that single out pregiven social and cultural practices. From
matical practices in the course of their classroom interac- one perspective, the focus is on the social and cultural basis
tions. Further, whereas sociocultural theorists give priority of personal experience. From the other perspective, it is on
to social and cultural process, analyses compatible with the constitution of social and cultural processes by actively
Bauersfeld's perspective propose that individual students' interpreting individuals.
mathematical activity and the classroom microculture are
reflexively related (Cobb, 1989; Voigt, 1992). In this view, Construction in Social Practice
individual students are seen as actively contributing to the
development of classroom mathematical practices, and Against the background of these contrasts between the two
these both enable and constrain their individual mathe- perspectives, I now consider possible--€cu2rrlinatiQnsJbe=-
matical activities. Consequently, it is argued that neither an tween them. In this section, I explore possible complemen-
individual student's mathematical activity nor the class- tarities between Rogoff's (1990) analysis of internalization
room microculture can be adequately accounted for with- and von Glasersfeld's (in press) discussion of empirical
out considering the other. and reflective abstraction. In a subsequent section, I elabo-
rate my argument by focusing on potential relationships

OCTOBER 1994 15
between Saxe's (1991) sociocultural analysis and Steffe, reflects the individual's understanding of and involve-
Cobb, and von Glasersfeld's (1988) constructivist analysis. ment in the activity. (Rogoff, 1990, p. 195)
My general strategy in both cases is to tease out aspects of
one position that are implicit in the other. Rogoff's distinction between the individual's use of a
One of the centrajjiotignsurxVygotsky's account_oi de- shared understanding and the shared_understanding that
velopment is mternalization. ,For exarnpleTTn his fre- is constructed jointly is closely related to the distinction
quently citedglTneralgenetic law of cultural development, that a constructivist might make between an individual
Vygotsky argued that child's understanding and the taken-as-shared meanings
established by the group (Cobb, Perlwitz, & Underwood,
any higher mental function was externaLand social before in press; Schutz, 1962). It therefore seems reasonable to
it was internal. It was once a social relationship between conclude from Rogoff's treatment of internalization that
two people. . . .We can formulate the general genetic law
of cultural development in the following way. Any func- mathematical learning is a process of active construction
tion appears twice or on two planes... Jt appears first be- that occurs when children engage in classroom mathemat-
tween people as an intermental category, and then within ical practices, frequently while interacting with others. Sig-
the child as an intramental category. (Vygotsky, 1960, pp. nificantly, a similar conclusion can be reached when
197-198) considering von Glasersfeld's (in press) elaboration of Pi-
aget's developmental theory.
From the constructivist perspective, jhis account of inter- Von Glasersfeld develops his view ofkarning as self-or-
nalization from the social realm to the internal cognitive
ganization by clarifying the^distinctionThatJEiaget made
realm leads to chfficulties-hecause the intergexaojaaLrela-
between two types of cognitive reorganization, empirical
tions that ariTto be internalized are located outside the
abstraction and reflective abstraction. In doing so, he em-
child. Researchers can indeed identify patterns of interac-
phasizes that an empirical abstraction results in the con-
tion, collective schemes, and so forth when they analyze
videorecordings or transcripts. However, a constructivist struction of a property of a physical object, whereas the
might follow Blumer (1969) in arguing that people respond process of constructing mathematical and scientific con-
to things in terms of the meaning they have for them rather cepts involves reflective abstraction. He illustrates the no-
than to constructs that researchers project into their tion of empirical abstraction by describing a situation in
worlds. From this point of view, the problem of explaining which someone wants to drive a nail into a wall, but does
how relations that are real for the detached observer get hot have a hammer. After looking around, the person finds
into the experiential world of the child appears intractable. a wpodgnjiiallet and begins to use this, only to find that
Rogoff (1990), who is mmany ways a follower-of-Vygot- the nail goes into the mallet instead of into the wall. Von
sky, discusses this difficulty in reference to research on so- Glasersfeld argues that, in this scenario, the person assim-
cial learning and socialization. She notes that, in this ilates the mallet to herjiarrunering^cheme, but then makes
research, children are considered to learn by observing or an accommodation when things do not go as expected, and
participating with others. "The underlying assumption is a perturbation-is experienced. This accommodation in-
that the external lesson [to be learned] is brought across a volves an empirical abstraction in that it results irTtEexon-
barrier into the mind of the child. How this is done is not struction of a noYelmxuaertyfpr the mallet—it is not the
x X j " " * ————~—————~„.
specified, and remains a deep problem for these ap- sort of thing that can be use4-to~hamrnet*»ails into walls.
proaches" (p. 195). In proposing a solution, Rogoff elabo- The interesting feature ofJhisj^xarnpleior my purposes
rates Vygotsky's notion of internalization by arguing that is that hammering is a cultural practice that involves acting
children are already engaged in a social activity when they with particular cultural artifacts, hammers and nails. The
actively observe and participate with others. If children are person's hammering scheme can be viewed as the product
viewed as being in the social activity in this way of active constructions she made in the course of her initi-
ation into this practice. In other words, hammers, nails,
with the interpersonal aspects of their functioning integral and mallets are, for her, cultural tools that she can use for
to the individual aspects, then what is practiced in social certain purposes. It is against the background of her en-
interaction is never on the outside of a barrier, and there
is no need for a separate process of internalization. gagement in this practice of hammering that she makes the
(p. 195, italics added) empirical abstraction described by von Glasersfeld. This
being the case, it seems reasonable to extend the definition
Here, Rogoff circumvents the need for anjinterrmUzation of empirical abstraction by emphasizing both that it results
process by proposing that the researcher change his or her in the emergence of novel physical properties and that it
perspective and focus on what children's interpersonal ac- occurs as the individual participates in a cultural practice,
tivity might mean to them. In constructivist terms, this in- often while interacting with others. This formulation in-
volves a shift in focus to the mathematical meanings and volves the coordination of perspectives in that the first
practices that the child considers are shared with others. part, referring as it does to an experienced novelty, is said
Rc«goirs_^QirjJLthat children_are already_actLve -partici- from the "inside," whereas the second part is said from the
pantsjn the social practice implies that they engage in and "outside" and locates the individual in a cultural practice.
contribute to the development of classroom mathematical The assumption that indiv4dA^-aciiyityJs_cultuially_sit-
practices from the outset. Further, uated is also implicit in von Glasersfeld's discussion of the
in the process of participation in social activity-the indi- construction of mathematical concepts. Here, the notion of
vidual alre^dxfunctions_with shared understanding. The reflective abstraction is used to account for the process by
individual's use of this shared understanding is not the which actions are reified and become mental mathematical
same as what was constructed jointly; it is an appropria- objects that can themselves be acted upon (cf. Sfard, 1991;
tion of the shared understanding by each individual that Thompson, 1994). For von Glasersfeld, it is by means of re-

26 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER
flective abstraction that students reorganize their initially four developmental levels in the evolution of the body-
informal mathematical activity. Consider, for example, a parts counting system. At the least sophisticated level, in-
situation in which the teacher introduces conventional dividuals dojjqtRecognize the need to keep track of the
written fraction symbols to record the results of students' second addend when they attempt to add, say, seven and
attempts to partition objects such as pizzas fairly. Von nine coins. As a consequence, they frequently produce an
Glasersfeld stresses that the students can only interpret the incorrect sum. In contrast, the most sophisticated of the
teacher's actions within the context of their ongoing activ- four levels involves the use of a "halved-body strategy"
ity. Further, the process by which the symbols come to sig- that incorporates a base-10 system linked to the currency.
nify the composition and decomposition of fractional units Here, in adding seven and nine coins,
of some type for at least some of the students is accounted
for in terms of the reification of partitioning activity via re- individuals use the shoulder (10) as a privileged value. In
flective abstraction. As with the example of the mallet, it their computation, they may represent the 9 on one side
can be observed that these conceptual reorganizations of the body as biceps (9) and 7 on the other side of the
occur as the students participate in cultural practices. In body as forearm (7). To accomplish the problem, a trade-
this case, these are the mathematical practices that the stu- store owner might simply "remove" the forearm from the
dents help to establish in the classroom. The mathematical second side. . .and transfer it to the first side where it be-
comes the shoulder (the 10th). He then "reads" the an-
concepts they each individually construct are relative to swer as 10 + 6 or 16. (p. 21)
and are constrained by their participation in these prac-
tices. It can also be noted that the activities from which the
In sociocultural terms, the Oksapmin's increasingly so-
students abstract include their interpretations of others' ac-
phisticated computational strategies can be viewed ^s cul-
tivity and of joint activities (Voigt, 1992). These considera-
tural forms. An account of development made from this
tions suggest that in defining reflective abstraction, we
perspective might focus on the extent to which individual
should emphasize both that it involves the reification of
Oksapmin participate in the new practice of economic ex-
sensory-motor and conceptual activity and that it occurs
change. Such an account would stress that typically only
while engaging in cultural practices, frequently while in-
tradestore owners, who have the most experience with
teracting with others. As was the case with the characteri-
economic transactions, use the sophisticated halved-body
zation of empirical abstraction, this formulation involves
strategy. In contrast to this view that social and cultural
the coordination of perspectives.
practices drive development, a constructivist analysis
In comparing Rogoff's and von Glaserfeld's work, it can might treat the Oksapmin's computational strategies as
be noted that Rogoff's view of learning as acculturation via cognitive forms created by self-organizing individuals. An
guided participation implicitly assumes an actively con- account of this latter type might focus on the processes by
structing child. Conversely, von Glasersfeld's view of which individual Oksapmin reflectively abstract from and
learning as cognitive self-organization implicitly assumes thus reorganize their enumerating activity, thereby creat-
that the child is participating in cultural practices. In effect, ing increasingly sophisticated arithmetical units. Interest-
active individual construction constitutes the background ingly, it is possible to develop such an account by using the
against which guided participation in cultural practices cognitive models of American children's arithmetical de-
comes to the fore for Rogoff, and this participation is the velopment proposed by Steffe as a source of analogies
background against which self-organization comes to the (Steffe et al., 1988).
fore for von Glasersfeld. We have seen that O^sapminat the least sophisticated
level donot recognize the need to keep jracEIo£cmrnting.
Coordinating Perspectives In contrast, Oksapmin at the next leveLconsciously attejnpt
The complementarity between the sjocircultural and con- to keep track. This suggests that these Oksapmin view
structivist perspectives can be further^larified by consid- their counting acts as entities that can themselves be
ering the analyses of arithmetical activity offered by Saxe - counted. In Steffe et al.'s (1988) terms, these acts carry the
(1991) and Steffe et al. (1988). In contrasTto the majority of significance of counting abstract units. This analysis,
sociocultural theorists, Saxe takes an ex^licillyLdeyelop- which is made from the "inside" rather than the "outside,"
mental perspective that focuses on individuals' under- explains why Oksapmin at the initial level do not recog-
standings while simultaneously emphasizing the influence nize the need to keep track of counting. They are yet to
of cultural practices and the use of sign forms and cultural reify their counting acts, and, as a consequence, body-parts
artifacts. He illustrates his theoretical approach by analyz- counting as they currently understand it is simply not the
ing the body-parts counting system-developed by the Ok- kind of activity that can be kept track of.
sapmin people of Papua New Guinea. This analysis can be extended to account for the devel-
Saxe explains that "to count as Oksapmin do, one begins opment of more sophisticated strategies. For example,
with the thumb on one hand, and follows a trajectory when the halved-body strategy is used, a body part such as
around the upper periphery of the body down to the little the biceps (9) appears to symbolize not a single unit but the
finger of the opposite hand" (1991, p. 16). With Western composite of nine abstract units that would be created by
contact and the introduction of tradestores, the Oksapmin counting to the biceps. In Piagetian terminology, counting
had to use this indigenous counting system to solve arith- has been reified via reflective abstraction, and the biceps
metical problems that did not emerge in traditional life, symbolizes nine experienced as an arithmetical object that
such as those of adding and subtracting values. In the can be conceptually manipulated.
course of his analysis of the interplay between the Oksap- Each of the two^erspectiyes, the sociocultural and the
min's participation in tradestore activities and their con- constructivist, tells half of a good _story,-and each can be
struction of mathematical understandings, Saxe identifies used to complement the other. For example, consider a sit-

OCTOBER1994 17
uation in which a young Oksapmin works in a tradestore beings or human societies, that only that vocabulary per-
and eventually learns the halved-body strategy used by mits them to be "understood," is the seventeenth-century
the store owner. A sociocultural explanation might talk of myth of "nature's own vocabulary" all over again, (p.
the novice appropriating or internalizing a cultural form. 163)
As we have seen, an account of this type has difficulty in
explaining how a cultural form that is external to the For Rprty, the various vocabularies we use or the particu-
novice is brought across the barrier and becomes a cogni- lar perspectives we taKelare instrumentsJor coping with
tive form. The constructivist analysis circumvents this dif- things rather than ways oflxepresenting their intrinsic na-
ficulty by stressing that rather than internalizing a cultural ture. Here, Rortyfollows De\yey_andJCuhn in arguing that
form that appears to be pregiven, the novice reorganizes we should "givejipjQie notion of science traveling towards
his or her own activity. Thus, to paraphrase Rogoff (1990), an end called 'corre§p_ondjng_with reality' and instead say
there is nothing to bring across the barrier and, conse- merely tha±_a_given ypcabularyjwofks'better than another
quently, no need to posit a process of internalization from for a givenpjjrposp (p. 157). Thus, "to say something is
the sociocultural to the cognitive realm. better understood in one vocabulary_ihan another is al-
ways an_ellipsis for thexlaimjhat a descriptionjn the_pre-
By the same token, the sociocultural perspective com- ferred vocabulary is most useful for acertain_p_urp_ose" (p.
plements the constructivist perspective by emphasizing 162). " '
that the novice trader reorganizes his or her counting ac-
tivity while attempting to achieve goals that emerge in the The implication of this pragmatic approach for mathe-
course of his or her participation in the practice of eco- matics education, and for education more generally, is to
nomic exchange (Saxe, 1991). From this point of view, it is consider what various^ejspectives might have to offer rel-
readily apparent that both what counts as a problem and ative to the problems or issues at hand. In this regard, I
what counts as a legitimate solution are highly normative suggest that the sociocultural perspective gives rise to the-
(cf. Solomon, 1989). Thus, both the process of individual ories of the conditions for the__possib_ilityof learning
construction and its products, increasingly sophisticated (Krummheuer, 1992), whereas theories developed from the
conceptual units, are social through and through. Con- constructivist perspective focus on both what students
versely, it can be argued that the various strategies, viewed learn and the processes by which they do so. For example,
as cultural forms, are cognitive through and through in Lave and Wenger (1991), who take a relatively radical po-
that they result from individual Oksapmin's constructive sition by attempting to avoid any reference to mind in the
activities. As was the case with the discussion of Rogoff s head, say that "a learning curriculum unfolds in opportuni-
and von Glasersfeld's analyses, this coordination of per- ties for engagement in practice" (p. 93, italics added). Con-
spectives leads to the view that learning is a process of sistent with this formulation, they note that their analysis
both self-organization and a process of enculturation that of various examples of apprenticeship in terms of legiti-
occurs while participating in cultural practices, frequently mate peripheral participation accounts for the occurrence
while interacting with others. of learning or failure to learn (p. 63). In contrast, a con-
structivist analysis would typically focus on the ways in
Theoretical Pragmatism which students reorganize their activity as they participate
in a learning curriculum, and on the processes by which
The discussion of Rogoff's, von Glasersfeld's, Saxe's, and the curriculum is interactively constituted in the local situ-
Steffe's work indicates that socioculturaL analyses involve ation of development. In my view, both these perspectives
implicit cognitive commitments, and vice versa. It is" as if are of value in the current era of educational reform that
one perspective constitutes the background against which stresses both students' meaningful mathematical learning
the other comes to the fore. This contention concerning the and the restructuring of the school while simultaneously
relationship between the perspectives can be contrasted taking issues of diversity seriously. Constructivists might
with the claims made by adherents to each perspective that argue that sociocultural theories do not adequately ac-
mind is either in the head or in the individual-in-social- count for the process of learning, and sociocultural theo-
action. Claims of this type reflect essentialist assumptions. rists might retort that constructivist theories fail to account
In effect, adherents of both positions claim that they have for the production and reproduction of the practices of
got the mind right—this is what the mind really is, always schooling and the social order. The challenge of. relating ac-
was, and always will be, independent of history and cul- tively constructing students, the local microculture, and
ture. A perusal of Geertz's (1983) discussion of Western, the established practices of the broader community re-
Arabic, and Indie visions of the self and of community quires that adherents to each perspective acknowledge the
might lead proponents of a partiaila*-perspectiveto„ ques- potential positive contributions of the other perspective. In
tion whether theirs is the God's-eye view. doing so, constructivists would accept the relevance of
Following Fish (1989), it can be argued that theer-izmg4s work that addresses the broader sociopolitical setting of re-
itself a form of practice ratherthan an activity that stands form. Conversely, sociocultural theorists would acknowl-
in opposition to practice. The discussion thus far suggests edge the pedagogical dilemmas articulated by Ball (1993)
that if we want our practice of theorizing to be reflexively when she spoke of attending to both students' interests
consistent with the theories we develop as we engage in and understandings, and to their mathematical heritage.
that practice, we have to give up essentialist claims and
take a more pragmatic approach. In this regard, Rorty In dispensing with essentialistclaims, this pragmatic ap-
(1983), who uses the metaphor of wielding vocabulary proach to theorizing instead proposes that the adoption of
rather than taking a perspective, argues that one perspective or another should be justified in terms of
its potential to address issues whose resolution might con-
the idea that only a certain vocabulary is suited to human tribute to the improvement of students' education. Voigt

18 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER
(1992) offered a justification of this type w h e n he stated we attempt to cope with our specific problems. In doing so,
that w e would give u p the quest for an acontextual, one-size-
fits-all perspective. Instead, w e w o u l d acknowledge that
personally the author takes the emphasis on the [individ-
we, like teachers, cast around for ways of making sense of
ual] subject as the starting-point in order to understand
the negotiation of meaning ahd~The~learfung of mathe- things as w e address the situated problems of our practice.
matics in classrooms... .The mainjreasonjsjhat concepts
like "socialization," "internalization," "initiation into a
social tradition," etc. do not (directly) explain what I
Notes
think is the most important objective of mathematics ed-
ucation. . . .The prominent objective of mathematics edu-
cation is not that students produce correct solutions to The research reported in this article was supported by the Spencer
Foundation and by the National Science Foundation under Grant
mathematical problems but that they do it insightfully RED-9353587. The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those
and by reasonable thinking. What on the behavioral level of the Foundations.
does in fact not make a difference should be an important Several notions central to this article were elaborated in the course
subjective difference, (p. 10) of discussions with Heinrich Bauersfeld, Gotz Krummheuer, and J&oumr;gl
Voigt at the University of Bielefeld, Germany. The author is also grate-
Justifications of this type are, of course, open to challenge. ful to Linda Barron, Elizabeth Goldman, and an anonymous reviewer
For example, a critic might argue that, in certain circum- for helpful comments on a previous draft.1'The phrase "mind in the head" is used as a
individualistic accounts of cognition. Following Johnson (1987) and
stances, it is more important that students produce'correct Varela, Thompson, and Rosch (1991), the phrase should not be read as
answers than that they develop insight. This counterargu- implying a mind-body dualism.
ment does not claim that Voigt's chosen perspective fails to
capture the essence of mathematical development. Instead,
it questions assumptions about educational objectives and,
ultimately, about what counts as improvement in students'
References
mathematics education. In general, claims about what
counts as improvement reflect beliefs and values about
Axel, E. (1992). One developmental line in European activity theories.
what it ought to mean to know and d o mathematics (or sci- Quarterly Newsletterof the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cogni-
ence or social studies) in school. These beliefs and values tion, 24(1), 8-17.
are themselves open to challenge and criticism, thus bring- Bikhurst, D. (1988). Activity, consciousness, and communication.
ing to the fore the moral and ethical aspects of educational Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cogni-
research and theorizing (Nicholls, 1989). tion, 10, 31-39.
Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas
The central claim of this article, that the sociocultural of teaching elementary school mathematics. Elementary School Jour-
and constructivist perspectives each constitute the back- nal, 93, 373-397.
ground for the other,- implies that justifications should Bauersfeld, H. (1980). Hidden dimensions in the so-called reality of a
mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 11,
explicitly bring the researcher into the picture by acknowl- 23-41.
edging his or her interpretive activity. Essentialist claims Bauersfeld, H. (1988). Interaction, construction, and knowledge: Al-
involve a denial of responsibility—it is social reality that ternative perspectives for mathematics education. In T. Cooney &
dictates the correct theoretical perspective. In contrast, D. Grouws (Eds.), Effective mathematics teaching (pp. 27-46). Reston,
pragmatic justifications reflect the researcher's awareness VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
that he or she has adopted a particular position for partic-
Bauersfeld, H. (in press). "Language games" in the mathematics class
ular reasons. From the sociocultural perspective, a justifi- room: Their function and their effects. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld
cation of this type w o u l d explain w h y it is not necessary to (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom
focus on the actively cognizing student for the purposes at cultures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
hand. Conversely, constructivists w o u l d be obliged to ex Bauersfeld, H., Krummheuer, G., & Voigt, J. (1988). Interactional the-
plain w h y it is not necessary to go beyond the box of the ory of learning and teaching mathematics and related microethno-
graphical studies. In H-G Steiner & A. Vermandel (Eds.),
classroom for their purposes, while acknowledging that it Foundations and methodology of the discipline of mathematics education
is appropriate to take a perspective that locates classroom (pp. 174-188). Antwerp, Belgium: Proceedings of the TME Confer-
events within a wider sociopolitical setting for other pur- ence.
poses. Bernstein, R. J. (1983). Beyond objectivism and relativism: Science, herme-
neutics, and praxis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
This pragmatic approach to theorizing also contends Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren-
that ways of coordinating perspectives should be devel- tice-Hall.
oped while addressing specific problems and issues. In ad- Bredo, E., & McDermott, R. P. (1992). Teaching, relating, and learning.
Educational Researcher, 21(5), 31-35.
dition, the suggestion acknowledges that Ball and other
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and
teachers have something interesting to say when they sug- the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
gest that the tension in teaching between individual con- Carraher, T. N., Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (1985). Mathe-
struction and enculturation cannot be resolved once and matics in streets and in schools. British Journal of Developmental Psy-
for all. Teachers instead have to act with w i s d o m and judg- chology, 3, 21-29.
ment by continually developing ways to cope with dilem- Cobb, P. (1989). Experiential, cognitive, and anthropological perspec-
tives in mathematics education. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9(2),
mas in particular situations. A similar m o d u s operandi 32-42.
w o u l d appear to be appropriate for researchers as we en- Cobb, P., & Bauersfeld, H. (in press). The coordination of psychologi-
gage in our practice. In place of attempts to subjugate re- cal and sociological perspectives in mathematics education. In
search to a single, overarching theoretical scheme that is P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), Emergence of mathematical meaning:
Interaction in classroom cultures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
posited a priori, we might follow Ball in reflecting on and Associates.
documenting our attempts to coordinate perspectives as Cobb, P., Perlwitz, M., & Underwood, D. (in press). Constructivism

OCTOBER 1994 19
 and activity theory: A consideration of their similarities and differ- Nunes, T. (1992). Ethnomathematics and everyday cognition. In D. A.
ences as they relate to mathematics education. In H. Mansfield, Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learn-
N. Pateman, & N. Bednarz (Eds.), Mathematics for tomorrow's young ing (pp. 557-574). New York: Macmillan.
children: International perspectives on curriculum. Dordrecht, Nether- Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. New York: Columbia University
lands: Kluwer Academic Press. Press.
Cobb, P., Wood, T., & Yackel, E. (1993). Discourse, mathematical think- Piaget, J. (1980). Adaptation and intelligence: Organic selection and pheno-
ing, and classroom practice. In N. Minick, E. Forman, & A. Stone copy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
(Eds.), Education and mind: Institutional, social, and developmental Putnam, H. (1987). The many faces of realism. LaSalle, IL: Open Court.
processes (pp. 91-119). New York: Oxford University Press. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in so-
Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (in press). A constructivist perspective on the cial context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
culture of the mathematics classroom. In F. Seeger, J. Voigt, & Rorty, R. (1978). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton: Prince-
U. Waschescio (Eds.), The culture of the mathematics classroom: Analy- ton University Press.
ses and changes. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press. Rorty, R. (1983). Method and morality. In N. Haan, R. N. Bellah, &
Confrey, J. (1990). A review of the research on student conceptions in P. Robinson (Eds.), Social science as moral inquiry (pp. 155-176). New
mathematics, science, and programming. In C. B. Cazden (Ed.), Re- York: Columbia University Press.
view of Research in Education (Vol. 16, pp. 3-55). Washington, DC: Saxe, G. B. (1991). Culture and cognitive development: Studies in mathe-
American Educational Research Association. matical understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Davydov, V. V. (1988). Problems of developmental teaching (part I). Schoenfeld, A. H. (1987). What's all the fuss about metacognition? In
Soviet Education, 30(8), 6-97. A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education
Fish, S. (1989). Doing what comes naturally. Durham, NC: Duke Univer- (pp. 189-216). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
sity Press. Schutz, A. (1962). The problem of social reality. The Hague, Holland:
Forman, E. (1992, August). Forms of participation in classroom practice. Martinus Nijhoff.
Paper presented at the International Congress on Mathematical Ed- Scribner, S. (1984). Studying working intelligence. In B. Rogoff &
ucation, Quebec City. J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp.
Geertz, C. (1983). Local knoivledge. New York: Basic Books. 9-40). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Greeno, J. G. (1991). Number sense as situated knowing in a concep- Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: Re-
tual domain, journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, flections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin.
170-218. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22,1-36.
Hanks, W. F. (1991). Foreword. In J. Lave & E. Wenger (Eds.), Situated Solomon, Y (1989). The practice of mathematics. London: Routledge.
learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (pp. 13-26). Cambridge: Steffe, L. P. (in press). Prospects for alternative epistemologies in edu-
Cambridge University Press. cation. In L. P. Steffe (Ed.), Constructivism in education. Hillsdale, NJ:
Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with un- Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
derstanding. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathe- Steffe, L. P., Cobb, P., & von Glasersfeld, E. (1988). Construction of arith-
matics teaching and learning (pp. 65-98). New York: Macmillan. ' metical meanings and strategies. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of reason and Thompson, P. W. (1994). Images of rate and operational understand-
imagination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ing of the fundamental theorem of calculus. Educational Studies in
Krummheuer, G. (1992). Lernen mit "format": Elemente einer interaktion- Mathematics, 26,229-274.
istischen lemtheorie. Weinheim, Germany: Deutscher Studien Verlag. van Oers, B. (1990). The development of mathematical thinking in
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in school: A comparison of the action-psychological and the informa-
everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. tion-processing approach. International journal of Educational Re-
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral par- search, 14, 51-66.
ticipation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Voigt, J. (1985). Patterns and routines in classroom interaction.
Leont'ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V. Recherches en Didactique des Mathematiques, 6, 69-118.
Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk, Voigt, J. (1992, August). Negotiation of mathematical meaning in classroom
NY: Sharpe. processes. Paper presented at the international Congress on Mathe-
Mehan, H., & Wood, H. (1975). The reality of ethnomethodology. New matical Education, Quebec City
York: John Wiley. von Glasersfeld, E. (1984). An introduction to radical constructivism.
Minick, N. (1989). L. S. Vygotsky and Soviet activity theory: Perspectives In P. Watzlawick (Ed.), The invented reality (pp. 17-40). New York:
on the relationship between mind and society. Literacies Institute, Spe- Norton.
cial Monograph Series No. 1. Newton, MA: Educational Develop- von Glasersfeld, E. (1987). Learning as a constructive activity. In
ment Center, Inc. C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning
Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Work- of mathematics (pp. 3-18). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ
ing for cognitive change in school. Cambridge: Cambridge University ates.
Press. von Glasersfeld, E. (1989a). Constructivism. In T. Husen & T. N.
Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (1st
Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ed., supplement vol. 1, pp. 162-163). Oxford: Pergamon.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1989b). Cognition, construction of knowledge,
and teaching. Synthese, 80,121-140.
von Glasersfeld, E, (1992). Constructivism reconstructed: A reply to
Suchting. Science and Education, 1, 379-384.
von Glasersfeld, E. (in press). Sensory experience, abstraction, and
Attention Members! teaching. In L. P. Steffe (Ed.), Constructivism in education. Hillsdale,
J995-1996 Biographical Membership Directory NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1960). Razvitie vysshikh psikhicheskikh funktsii [The de
AERA will publish a new Biographical Membership Directory velopment of the higher mental functions]. Moscow: Akad. Ped. Nauk.
in early 1995. In addition to addresses, the directory wiE contain RSFSR.
telephone and fax numbers and E-mail addresses, Divisional Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psy-
affiliations, major areas of responsibility, primary discipline, pro- chological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
fessional interest codes, and highest degree (as well as year it was Vygotsky, L. S. (1979). Consciousness as a problem in the psychology
received). of behavior. Soviet Psychology, 17(4), 3-35.
If you do not wish to be listed in the directory, please let
us know no later than January 7, 1995, by writing to: AERA
Membership Directory. 1230 17th Street, NW, Washington,
DC 20036-3078 Received July 1,1993
Please include your name and address. Thank you. Revision received September 15,1993
Accepted January 12,1994

20 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER