Volume 16 · Number 3 · Pages 275–278
Enactivist How? Rethinking Metaphorizing as Imaginary Constraints Projected on Sensorimotor Interaction Dynamics

Dor Abrahamson

Log in download the full text in PDF

> Citation > Similar > References > Add Comment

Abstract

Open peer commentary on the article “Enactive Metaphorizing in the Mathematical Experience” by Daniela Díaz-Rojas, Jorge Soto-Andrade & Ronnie Videla-Reyes. Abstract: Welcoming their scholarly focus on metaphorizing, I critique Díaz-Rojas, Soto-Andrade and Videla-Reyes’s selection of the hypothetical constructs “conceptual metaphor” and “enactive metaphor” as guiding the epistemological positioning, educational design, and analytic interpretation of interactive mathematics education purporting to operationalize enactivist theory of cognition - both these constructs, I argue, are incompatible with enactivism. Instead, I draw on ecological dynamics to promote a view of metaphors as projected constraints on action, and I explain how mathematical concepts can be grounded in perceptual reorganization of motor coordination. I end with a note on how metaphors may take us astray and why that, too, is worthwhile.

Citation

Abrahamson D. (2021) Enactivist how? Rethinking metaphorizing as imaginary constraints projected on sensorimotor interaction dynamics. Constructivist Foundations 16(3): 275–278. https://constructivist.info/16/3/275

Export article citation data: Plain Text · BibTex · EndNote · Reference Manager (RIS)

References

Abrahamson D. & Abdu R. (2020) Towards an ecological-dynamics design framework for embodied-interaction conceptual learning: The case of dynamic mathematics environments. In: Kopcha T. J., Valentine K. D., & Ocak C. (eds.) Embodied cognition and technology for learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, Online First. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Abrahamson D. (2009) Orchestrating semiotic leaps from tacit to cultural quantitative reasoning: The case of anticipating experimental outcomes of a quasi-binomial random generator. Cognition and Instruction 27(3): 175–224. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Abrahamson D. (2018) Moving forward: In search of synergy across diverse views on the role of physical movement in design for STEM education. In: Kay J. & Luckin R. (eds.) Proceedings of the 13th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2018) Volume 2. International Society of the Learning Sciences, London: 1243–1250. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Abrahamson D. (2019) A new world: Educational research on the sensorimotor roots of mathematical reasoning. In: Shvarts A. (ed.) Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Russian chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME) & Yandex. Yandex, Moscow: 48–68. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Abrahamson D. (2020) Strawberry feel forever: Understanding metaphor as sensorimotor dynamics. The Senses and Society 15(2): 216–238. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Abrahamson D. (2021) Grasp actually: An evolutionist argument for enactivist mathematics education. Human Development, Online First. https://cepa.info/7084
Abrahamson D., Berland M. W., Shapiro R. B., Unterman J. W. & Wilensky U. (2006) Leveraging epistemological diversity through computer-based argumentation in the domain of probability. For the Learning of Mathematics 26(3): 39–45. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Abrahamson D., Dutton E. & Bakker A. (2021) Towards an enactivist mathematics pedagogy. In: Stolz S. A. (ed.) The body, embodiment, and education: An interdisciplinary approach. Routledge, New York. In press. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Abrahamson D., Gutiérrez J. F. & Baddorf A. K. (2012) Try to see it my way: The discursive function of idiosyncratic mathematical metaphor. Mathematical Thinking and Learning 14(1): 55–80. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Abrahamson D., Janusz R. & Wilensky U. (2006) There once was a 9-Block…: A middle-school design for probability and statistics. Journal of Statistics Education 14(1) http://jse.amstat.org/v14n1/abrahamson.html
Abrahamson D., Lee R. G., Negrete A. G. & Gutiérrez J. F. (2014) Coordinating visualizations of polysemous action: Values added for grounding proportion. ZDM Mathematics Education 46(1): 79–93. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Abrahamson D., Nathan M. J., Williams-Pierce C., Walkington C., Ottmar E. R., Soto H. & Alibali M. W. (2020) The future of embodied design for mathematics teaching and learning. Frontiers in Education 5: 147. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00147
Abrahamson D., Sánchez-García R. & Smyth C. (2016) Metaphors are projected constraints on action: An ecological dynamics view on learning across the disciplines. In: Looi C.-K., Polman J., Cres U. & Reimann P. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2016) Volume 1. International Society of the Learning Sciences, Singapore: 314–321. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Araújo D., Davids K. & Renshaw I. (2020) Cognition, emotion, and action in sport: An ecological dynamics approach. In: Tenenbaum G. & Eklund R. C. (eds.) Handbook of sport psychology. 4th edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York: 535–555. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Gallagher S. & Lindgren R. (2015) Enactive metaphors: Learning through full-body engagement. Educational Psychology Review 27(3): 391–404. https://cepa.info/6847
Gallagher S. (2015) Invasion of the body snatchers: How embodied cognition is being disembodied. The Philosophers’ Magazine: April: 96–102. https://cepa.info/2255
Gray M. E. & Holyoak K. J. (2021) Teaching by analogy: From theory to practice. Mind, Brain, and Education, Early View. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Lakoff G. & Núñez R. E. (2000) Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. Basic Books, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Leron U. & Ejersbo L. R. (2021) Good errors in mathematics education. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 52(5): 752–766. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Rosen D. M., Palatnik A. & Abrahamson D. (2018) A better story: An embodiment argument for stark manipulatives. In: Calder N., Sinclair N. & Larkin K. (eds.) Using mobile technologies in the learning of mathematics. Springer International Publishing, Cham: 189–211. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Sheets-Johnstone M. (2015) Embodiment on trial: A phenomenological investigation. Continental Philosophy Review 48(1): 23–39. https://cepa.info/7090
Sloutsky V. M., Kaminski J. A. & Heckler A. F. (2005) The advantage of simple symbols for learning and transfer. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 12(3): 508–513. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Tancredi S., Abdu R., Abrahamson D. & Balasubramaniam R. (2021) Modeling nonlinear dynamics of fluency development in an embodied-design mathematics learning environment with Recurrence Quantification Analysis. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 29: 100297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100297
Trninic D., Kapur M. & Sinha T. (2020) The disappearing “Advantage of abstract examples in learning math.” Cognitive Science 44(7): E12851. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Uttal D. H., Scudder K. V. & DeLoache J. S. (1997) Manipulatives as symbols: A new perspective on the use of concrete objects to teach mathematics. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 18: 37–54. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Varela F. J., Thompson E. & Rosch E. (1991) The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. MIT Press, Cambridge MA. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Zhang I., Givvin K. B., Sipple J. M., Son J. Y. & Stigler J. W. (2021) Instructed hand movements affect students’ learning of an abstract concept from video. Cognitive Science 45(2): E12940. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Comments: 0

To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.