Advertisement

Integrating the Sociocultural and the Sociopolitical in Mathematics Education

  • Murad Jurdak
Chapter
Part of the ICME-13 Monographs book series (ICME13Mo)

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to seek an integration of the sociocultural and sociopolitical perspectives in mathematics education by integrating a locally attuned version of Bourdieu’s field theory (Ferrare & Apple in Camb J Educ 45(1):43-59, 2015) and activity system (Engeström in Learning by expanding: an activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015) to disrupt the separate development of the two perspectives. I combine the two theories using modular integration. Next, the chapter discusses the implications of this integration to mathematics education research, practice, and policies. I conclude with a personal narrative on my theoretical journey to sociopolitical mathematics education.

Keywords

Activity theory Bourdieu field theory Mathematics education Sociocultural Sociopolitical Integration 

References

  1. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production: Essays on art and literature. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Cobb, P. (2006). Mathematics learning as a social practice. In J. Maasz & W. Schloeglmann (Eds.), New mathematics education research and practice (pp. 147–152). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research (second edition). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ferrare, J., & Apple, M. (2015). Field theory and educational practice: Bourdieu and the pedagogic qualities of local field positions in educational contexts. Cambridge Journal of Education, 45(1), 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Freire, P. (1970/2013). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  9. Gutiérrez, R. (2013). The socio political turn in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(1), 37–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gutstein, E. (2006). Reading and writing the world with mathematics: Toward pedagogy for social justice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Jorgensen, R., Gates, P., & Vanessa Roper, V. (2014). Structural exclusion through school mathematics: Using Bourdieu to understand mathematics as a social practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 87, 221–239.Google Scholar
  12. Jurdak, M. (2006). Contrasting perspectives and performance of high school students on problem solving in real world, situated, and school contexts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63(3), 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jurdak, M. (2011). Equity in quality mathematics education: A global perspective. In B. Atweh, M. Graven, & W. Secada (Eds.), Mapping equity and quality in mathematics education (pp. 131–144). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Jurdak, M. (2016a). Learning and teaching real world problem solving in school mathematics—A multiple-perspective framework for crossing the boundary. Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Jurdak, M. (Ed.). (2016b). School-based reform (TAMAM): Voices from the field (in Arabic). Beirut: Arab Thought Foundation. Available at: http://tamamproject.org/research/tamam-voices-from-the-field/.
  16. Jurdak, M., & Shahin, I. (2001). Problem solving activity in the workplace and the school: The case of constructing solids. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(3), 297–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jurdak, M., Vithal, R., de Freitas, E., Gates, P., & Kollosche, K. (2016). Social and political dimensions of mathematics education, ICME-13 topical surveys. New York: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29655-5_1. Address on line: http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-29655-5.
  18. Kalkhoff, W., Friedkin, N. E., & Johnsen, E. C. (2010). Status, networks, and opinions: A modular integration of two theories. In Advances in group processes (pp. 1–38). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  19. Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  20. Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 37–71). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  21. Lerman, S. (2000). The social turn in mathematics education research. In J. Boaler (Ed.) Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 19–44). Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
  22. Lerman, S. (2006). Cultural psychology, anthropology and sociology: The developing ‘strong’ social turn. In J. Maasz & W. Schloeglmann (Eds.), New mathematics education research and practice (pp. 171–188). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. Lucariello, J. (1995). Mind, culture, person: Elements in a cultural psychology. Human Development, 38(1), 2–18.Google Scholar
  24. Markovsky, B., Dilks, L. M., Koch, P., McDonough, S., Triplett, J., & Velasquez, L. (2008). Modularizing and integrating theories of justice. In Justice (pp. 345–371). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  25. Nolan, K. (2016). Schooling novice mathematics teachers on structures and strategies: a Bourdieuian perspective on the role of “others” in classroom practices. Educational Studies in Mathematics Education, 92, 315–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pais, A. (2012). A critical approach to equity. In O. Skovsmose & B. Greer (Eds.), Opening the cage (pp. 49–91). Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  27. Roth, W., Radford, L., & La Croix, L. (2012). Working with cultural-historical activity theory. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 13(2), 1–20.Google Scholar
  28. Shulman, L. S. (1970). Psychology and mathematics education. In E. Begle (Ed.), Mathematics education (pp. 23–71). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.Google Scholar
  29. Skovsmose, O. (2011). An invitation to critical mathematics education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Skovsmose, O., & Greer, B. (2012). Opening the cage: Critique and politics of mathematics education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stone, L. D., & Gutiérrez, K. D. (2007). Problem articulation and the processes of assistance: An activity theoretic view of mediation in game play. International Journal of Educational Research, 46(1), 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vithal, R. (2003). In search of a pedagogy of conflict and dialogue for mathematics education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  34. Williams, J. (2012). Use and exchange value in mathematics education: Contemporary CHAT meets Bourdieu’s sociology. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80(1/2), 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.American University of BeirutBeirutLebanon

Personalised recommendations