Advertisement

Learning from Distributed Theories of Intelligence

  • Paul CobbEmail author
Chapter
  • 1.5k Downloads
Part of the Mathematics Education Library book series (MELI, volume 48)

Abstract

The analysis reported in this article is grounded in the practice of classroom-based developmental or transformational research and focuses on the distributed views of intelligence developed by Pea (1993) and by Hutchins (1995). The general areas of agreement with this theoretical perspective include both the nondualist orientation and the critical role attributed to tool use. Against this background, I focus on two aspects of the distributed view that I and my colleagues have found necessary to modify for our purposes. The first concerns the legitimacy of taking the individual as the unit of analysis, and here I argue that the distributed view implicitly accepts key tenets of mainstream American psychology’s characterization of the individual even as it explicitly rejects it. The second modification concerns distributed intelligence’s characterization of tool use. Drawing on a distinction made by Dewey, I argue that it is more useful for the purposes of instructional design to focus on activity that involves using the tool as an instrument, rather than focusing on the tool itself.

Keywords

Realistic Mathematics Education (RME) design theory Distributed theories of intelligence Semiotic mediation Tool use Classroom-based instructional design heuristics Communal classroom practices 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The analysis reported in this article was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant RED-9353587 and by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement under Grant R305A60007. The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of either the Foundation or of OERI.

References

  1. Bateson, G. (1973). Steps to an ecology of mind. London: Paladin.Google Scholar
  2. Bednarz, N., Dufour-Janvier, B., Poirier, L., & Bacon, L. (1993). Socio constructivist viewpoint on the use of symbolism in mathematics education. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 39, 41–58.Google Scholar
  3. Bowers, J., Cobb, P., & McClain, K. (1999). The evolution of mathematical practices: A case study. Cognition and Instruction. Google Scholar
  4. Cobb, P. (1987). Information-processing psychology and mathematics education—A constructivist perspective. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 6, 3–40.Google Scholar
  5. Cobb, P. (1990). A constructivist perspective on information-processing theories of mathematics education. International Journal of Educational Research, 14, 67–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cobb, P. (1996, July). Accounting for mathematical learning in the social context of the classroom. Paper presented at the Eighth International Congress on Mathematical Education, Seville, Spain.Google Scholar
  7. Cobb, P. (2000). Conducting classroom teaching experiments in collaboration with teachers. In A. E. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 307–334). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  8. Cobb, P., Gravemeijer, K., Yackel, E., McClain, K., & Whitenack, J. (1997). Mathematizing and symbolizing: The emergence of chains of signification in one first-grade classroom. In D. Kirshner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition theory: Social, semiotic, and neurological perspectives (pp. 151–233). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental KS&sadn. Educational Psychologist, 31, 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions (pp. 1–6). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Confrey, J., & Lachance, A. (2000). Transformative teaching experiments through conjecture-driven research design. In A. E. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 231–265). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Dewey, J. (1977). In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey, The middle works. 1899–1924 (Vol. 2, pp. 362–363). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dörfler, W. (1989). Protocols of actions as a cognitive tool for knowledge construction. In G. Vergnaud, J. Rogalski, & M. Artigue (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 212–219). Paris, France: PME.Google Scholar
  14. Dörfler, W. (1993). Computer use and views of the mind. In C. Keitel & K. Ruthven (Eds.), Learning from computers: Mathematics education and technology (pp. 159–186). Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  15. Fuson, K. C. (1992). Research on whole number addition and subtraction. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 243–275). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  16. Gravemeijer, K. E. P. (1994). Developing realistic mathematics education. Utrecht, The Netherlands: CD-p Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gravemeijer, K., Cobb, P., Bowers, J. & Whitenack, J. (2000). Symbolizing, modeling, and instructional design. In P. Cobb, E. Yackel, & K. McClain (Eds.), Symbolizing and communicating in mathematics classrooms: Perspectives on discourse, tools, and instructional design. (pp. 225–274) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  18. Greeno, J. G. (1991). Number sense as situated knowing in a conceptual domain. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 170–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hatano, G. (1993). Time to merge Vygotskian and constructivist conceptions of knowledge acquisition. In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children’s development (pp. 153–166). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hutchins, E. (1996). Response to reviewers. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3, 64–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. John-Steiner, V. (1995). Spontaneous and scientific concepts in mathematics: A Vygotskian approach. In L. Meira & D. Carraher (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 30–44). Recife, Brazil: Program Committee of 19th PME Conference.Google Scholar
  23. Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of reason and imagination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kaput, J. J. (1987). Towards a theory of symbol use in mathematics. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 159–195). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  25. Kaput, J. J. (1991). Notations and representations as mediators of constructive processes. In E. von Glasersfeld (Ed.), Constructivism in mathematics education (pp. 53–74). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  26. Latour, B. (1996). Review of Cognition in the Wild. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3, 54–63.Google Scholar
  27. Lave, J. (1993). Word problems: A microcosm of theories of learning. In P. Light & G. Butterworth (Eds.), Context and cognition: Ways of learning and knowing (pp. 74–92). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  28. Lemke, J. L. (1997). Cognition, context, and learning: A social semiotic perspective. In D. Kirshner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition theory: Social, semiotic, and neurological perspectives (pp. 37–55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  29. Mason, J. (1987). What do symbols represent? In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the learning and teaching of mathematics (pp. 73–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  30. Mehan, H., & Wood, H. (1975). The reality of ethnomethodology. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  31. Meira, L. (1995). The microevolution of mathematical representations in children’s activity. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 269–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nemirovsky, R. (1994). On ways of symbolizing: The case of Laura and the velocity sign. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 13(4), 389–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nunes, T., Schliemann, A. D., & Carraher, D. W. (1993). Street mathematics and school mathematics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Pea, R. D. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using computers to reorganize human mental functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20, 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pea, R. D. (1987). Cognitive technologies for mathematics education. In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 89–122). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  36. Pea, R. D. (1992). Augmenting the discourse of learning with computer-based learning environments. In E. de Corte, M. Linn, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Computer-based learning environments and problem solving (NATO Series, Subseries F: Computer and Systems Sciences, pp. 313–343). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions (pp. 47–87). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Pirie, S., & Kieran, T. (1994). Growth in mathematical understanding: How can we characterize it and how can we represent it? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 61–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Prawat, R. S. (1995). Misreading Dewey: Reform, projects, and the language game. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 13–22.Google Scholar
  41. Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139–164). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Rorrunetveit, R. (1992). Outlines of adialogically based social-cognitive approach to human cognition and communication. In A. Heen Wold (Ed.), The dialogical alternative: Towards a theory of language and mind (pp. 19–44). Oslo, Norway: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Salomon, G. (1993). No distribution without individuals’ cognition: A dynamic interactional view. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions (pp. 111–138). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Saxe, G. B. (1991). Culture and cognitive development: Studies in mathematical understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  45. Schutz, A. (1962). The problem of social reality. The Hague, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  46. Sfard, A., & Linchevski, L. (1994). The gains and pitfalls of reification—the case of algebra. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 87–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shotter, J. (1995). In dialogue: Social constructionism and radical constructivism. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 41–56). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  48. Steffe, L. P., Cobb, P., & von Glasersfeld, E. (1988). Construction of arithmetical meanings and strategies. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  49. Stigler, J. W., Femandez, C, & Yoshida, M. (1996). Traditions of school mathematics in Japanese and American elementary classrooms. In L. P. Steffe, P. Nesher, P. Cobb, G. Goldin, & B. Greer (Eds.), Theories of mathematical learning (pp. 149–175). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  50. Streefiand, L. (1991). Fractions in realistic mathematics education: A paradigm of developmental research. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  51. Thompson, P. W. (1992). Notations, principles, and constraints: Contributions to the effective use of concrete manipulatives in elementary mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23, 123–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Treffers, A. (1987). Three dimensions: A model of goal and theory description in mathematics instructionThe Wiskobas Project. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.Google Scholar
  53. Treffers, A. (1990). Rekenen tot twintig met het rekeruek [Addition and subtraction up to twenty with the arithmetic rack]. WillemBartjens, 10(1), 35–45.Google Scholar
  54. Ueno, N. (1995). The social construction of reality in the artifacts of numeracy for distribution and exchange in a Nepalese bazaar. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 2, 240–257.Google Scholar
  55. van Oers, B. (1996). Leaming mathematics as meaningful activity. In P. Nesher, L. Steffe, P. Cobb, G. Goldin, & B. Greer (Eds.), Theories of mathematical learning (pp. 91–114). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  56. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  57. von Glasersfeld, E. (1991). Abstraction, representation, and reflection: An interpretation of experience and Piaget’s approach. In L. P. Steffe (Ed.), Epistemological foundations of mathematical experience (pp. 45–67). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  58. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of Vygotsky, L. S. Vol. 1: Problems of general psychology (pp. 37–285). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  59. Walkerdine, V. (1988). The mastery of reason. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Wertsch, J. V. (1994a). The primacy of mediated action in sociocultural studies. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1, 202–208.Google Scholar
  61. Wertsch, J. V. (1994b). Struggling with the past: Some dynamics of historical representation. In M. Carretero & J. Voss (Eds.), Cognitive and instructional processes in history and the social sciences (pp. 323–338). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  62. Whitenack, J. W. (1995). Modeling, mathematizing, and mathematical learning as it is situated in the classroom microculture. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.Google Scholar
  63. Whitson, J. A. (1997). Cognition as a semiosic process: Grounding, mediation, and critical reflective transcendence. In D. Kirshner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition theory: Social, semiotic, and neurological perspectives (pp. 97–149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  64. Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  65. Yackel, E. (1995). The classroom teaching experiment. Unpublished manuscript, Purdue University, Calumet, IL.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations