FLM Publishing Association

Mapping Mathematical Communities: Classrooms, Research Communities and Masterclass

Hybrids
Author(s): Nick Pratt and Peter Kelly
Reviewed work(s):
Source: For the Learning of Mathematics, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Jul., 2007), pp. 21, 34-39
Published by: FLM Publishing Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40248569 .
Accessed: 19/06/2012 02:42
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.

FLM Publishing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to For the
Learning of Mathematics.

http://www.jstor.org

number is a format - or, in Watson and Mason's terms, a

'flavour' - for generating (an infinite number of) examples.
However, Cindy's claim above, that a number that leaves a
remainder of 1 in division by 2 is an odd number does not
serve for her as a generator of examples. Without further
probing, this gives an illusion of understanding, when, in
fact, there is an inability to come up with a specific example.
As such, we consider not only the "flavour of possible examples", but also individual's ability to work with this flavour.
Paraphrasing Mason and Pimm (1984), notwithstanding
the general, we are interested in participants' ability of "filling the general with the particular". Additional illustration
for the unfilled 'example flavour' is in the lack of concreteness in the examples of the multiple solution tasks provided
by teachers. This is in contrast to the anticipated example
that could include a precise formulation of a problem and
its different solutions.

Conclusion
We adopt the view that "to understand mathematics means,
among other things, to be familiar with conventional example
spaces" (Watson and Mason, 2005, p. 64). From this position,
we believe that learners' example spaces, and their relationship to the conventional ones, provide a window into their
understanding of mathematics. We considered two kinds of
example spaces generated by participants: examples of mathematical concepts and examples of mathematical tasks. By
analyzing revealing features of these examples we suggested
a possible lens through which learners' example spaces can
be viewed in order to examine the learners' knowledge and
understanding. The suggested framework is a guideline, it is
neither comprehensive nor complete; some of the components are not applicable for some example generation tasks

[These referencesfollow onfrom page 39 of the article "Mapping

mathematicalcommunities:classrooms,researchcommunitiesand
masterclasshybrids" thatstarts on page 34 (ed)]
Doyle, W. (1986) 'Classroomorganisationand management',in Wittrock,
M. (d.), Handbookof researchon teaching,New York,NY, Macmillan.
Gergen,K. (1999) An invitationto social construction,London,UK, Sage
Publications.
Hardman,R, Smith, F., Mroz, M and Wall, K. (2003) 'Interactivewhole
class teaching in the National Literacyand NumeracyStrategies',The
British EducationalResearchAssociation Annual Conference (BERA
2003), Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, available online at
accessed on
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003267.htm,
28th April,2007.
Hersh,R. (1998), Whatis mathematics,really?, London,UK, Vintage.
Julie, C. (2002) 'The activity system of school-teachingmathematicsand
mathematicalmodelling',For the Learningof Mathematics22(3), 29-37.
Kelly, P. (2006) 'What is teacher learning?A socio-culturalperspective',
OxfordReviewof Education32(4), 505-519.
Lave,J. (1997) 'Thecultureof acquisitionandthe practiceof understanding',
in Kirshner,D. andWhitson,J. (eds), Situatedcognition:social, semiotic
andpsychologicalperspectives,Mahwah,NJ, LawrenceErlbaum.
Lave, J. and Wenger,E. (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral
participation,Cambridge,UK, CambridgeUniversityPress.

and example spaces while some possible characteristics of

example spaces are not featured in the framework. Nevertheless, we consider it to be a compelling starting point for
further development and successive refinement.

Notes
[1] Leikin, R. and Levav-Waynberg,A. (in press) 'Exploringmathematics
teacherknowledgeto explainthe gap betweentheory-basedrecommendationsand school practicein the use of connectingtasks', Educational
Studiesin Mathematics.

References
Ginsburg, H. (1997) Entering the child's mind: the clinical interview in
psychological researchand practice, Cambridge,UK, CambridgeUniversity Press.
Kennedy,M. (2002) 'Knowledgeandteaching', Teacherand Teaching:theory and practice 8, 355-370.
Leinhardt,G. (1993) 'On teaching',in Glaser,R. (d.),Advancesin instructionalpsychology, 4, Hillsdale,NJ, Erlbaum,pp. 1-54.
Mason, J. and Pimm, D. (1984) 'Generic examples: seeing the general in
the particular',EducationalStudiesin Mathematics15, 277-289.
Sirotic,N. and Zazkis, R. (2007) 'Irrationalnumbers:the gap betweenformal and intuitive knowledge', Educational Studies in Mathematics
65(1), 49-76.
Skemp, R. (1987, second edition) Thepsychology of learning mathematics, London,UK, PenguinBooks.
Watson,A. and Mason, J. (2005) Mathematicsas a constructiveactivity:
learnersgeneratingexamples,Mahwah,NJ, LawrenceErlbaum.
Zazkis, R. and Liljedahl,P. (2002) 'Generalizationof patterns:the tension
between algebraicthinkingand algebraicnotation', EducationalStudies in Mathematics49, 379-402.
Zazkis, R. and Sirotic, N. (2004) 'Making sense of irrationalnumbers:
focusing on representation',Proceedings of the twenty-eighthannual
conferenceof the InternationalGroupfor the Psychologyof Mathematics Education, 4, Bergen, Norway, Bergen University College, pp.
497-505.
Zhu,S. andSimon,H. (1987) 'Learningmathematicsfromexamplesandby
doing', Cognitionand Instruction4, 137-166.

Mercer,N. (1995) Theguided constructionof knowledge,Clevedon, UK,

MultilingualMattersLtd.
Pimm,D. (1987) Speakingmathematically.Communicationin mathematics
classrooms,London,UK, Routledgeand KeganPaul Ltd.
Pratt,N. (2006a) "Interactive'teachingin numeracylessons: what do childrenhave to say?', CambridgeJournal of Education36(2), 221-236.
Pratt,N. (2006b) Interactivemathsteachingin theprimaryschool, London,
UK, Paul ChapmanPublishing.
Schoenfeld,A. (1985) Mathematicalproblemsolving, New York,NY,Academic Press.
Schoenfeld,A. (1996) 'In fosteringcommunitiesof inquiry,must it matter
that the teacherknows 'the answer'?', For the Learningof Mathematics 16(3),11-16.
Solomon, Y. (1998) 'Teachingmathematics:ritual,principleand practice',
Journal of Philosophyof Education32(3), 377-390.
Stewart,I. (1997) Themagical maze:seeing the world throughmathematical eyes, London,UK, Phoenix.
van Oers, B. (2001) 'Educationalforms of initiationin mathematicalculture', EducationalStudiesin Mathematics46, 59-85.
Wedege,T. (2002) 'Numeracyas a basic qualificationin semi-skilledjobs',
For the Learningof Mathematics22(3), 23-28.
Wenger,E. (1998) Communitiesof practice: learning, meaningand identity, Cambridge,UK, CambridgeUniversityPress.

21

MAPPING

MATHEMATICAL
COMMUNITIES

RESEARCH COMMUNITIES
CLASSROOMS,
AND

HYBRIDS
MASTERCLASS

NICKPRATT,PETER KELLY
We want to explore what it means to learn mathematics
within differentcommunitiesof practiceand, in particular,
to consider how changes to these communities might be
likely to affect the resultantlearning.In doing so, we aim to
lay the theoreticalgroundworkfor an empiricalstudy which
exploresthe idea of hybridcommunities- thatis, situations
which are deliberately designed to exhibit features of two
or more idealised communities.We adoptWenger's (1998)
theoreticalframeworkof communitiesof practice, takingthe
view that learning is as much part of our human natureas
eating or sleeping and that communities of practice are
informal and pervasive aspects of our daily lives, which
rarelycome into explicit focus. However,unlikeWenger,we
view termssuch as 'learning'and 'communityof practice'as
constructionsoffering a useful startingpoint for the shared
negotiation of meaning, ratherthan suggesting that they
faithfully capturean essential aspect of the world. In this
sense, we use the idea of a community of practice as a
metaphor,or lens, for betterunderstandingsocial situations.
The articleproposesthe following:
from a 'communitiesof practice'
perspective,formal learning communities such as schools make
use of mathematicalknowledge in the norms, discourses and practices of schooling, and so
participantscome to know mathematicsas teachers
or students

as a result, it is dilemmas of performance which

preoccupy participantsratherthan 'mathematical
dilemmas'(Lave, 1997)

it is mathematicaldilemmaswhich preoccupyparticipantsin communitiesof mathematicsresearchers

it is possible to form a hybridcommunitybetween

that of formal schooling and that of mathematical
research, which supports student learning whilst
focusing on mathematicaldilemmas.
These propositionsare of particularrelevanceto the current
English education system, which has seen a tightening of
control over children'smathematicalactivity and a greater
emphasis on test outcomes over the last fifteen years.
Recently, the government has introduced the notion of
extendedschooling (DfES, 2005) where students will take
partmore regularly in out-of-school activity. Clearly, this
raisesthe questionof whatsuch activity,positionedpartially
34

within and without school, might offer studentsin termsof

mathematical experiences. It is our view that the idea of
hybrid communities - where the socio-culturalfeaturesof
school classroomsand mathematicalresearchcommunities
are deliberatelymixed to varying degrees - might provide
possible models for extended schools. More widely, we
believe that this notion of hybridisationmight offer some
solutionsto the difficultyof persuadingstudentsin England
to take mathematicsat advanced and undergraduatelevel.
If school mathematicsis not attractingstudents,one practical approach might be repositioning the subject through
alternativeslinked to, but not replicating,school. We would
assertthatone of the outcomesof recentchangesto the educationsystem in Englandis thatschools focus so specifically
on the act of learning mathematics that students often do
not get a chance to experiencewhat it is to do mathematics.
The notion of hybridcommunities,positionedbetweenformal (school) and non-formalsituations,might offer a means
of managingmathematicalactivity such thatstudentscome
to know the subjectin ways thatare attractiveto them.

Socio-cultural views of expertise

Socio-culturalviews of learninghave importantimplications

for those involved in deliberatelypromotinglearningin disciplines such as mathematics. When viewed through the
socio-culturallens, expertteachersand studentsparticipate
fully in the discourse, norms and practices of classrooms.
For example, students and teachers often use "educational
discourse" (Mercer, 1995), which conforms with required
classroomconventions;they recognise the things which are
valuedand rewardedin classrooms,often by the assessment
system, and focus on meeting these particularrequirements
(Bennett, Desforges, Cockburnand Wilkinson, 1984; Desforges and Cockburn, 1987; Doyle, 1983, 1986). In this
scenario, neither teachers nor students are merely passive
participantsrespondingto events. Throughnegotiation,students and teachers actively co-construct the norms,
discourses and practices of their classroom community
throughongoing negotiation.
Schoenfeld (1985) suggests that students' expectations
have an influence on their activity in classrooms. Students
often consider mathematics to be received, not co-constructed,perceivingit as a body of knowledgeratherthana
formof activity,argumentation
andsocial discourse.In short,
studentstend to regardmathematicsas whatexpertsknow to

For the Learningof Mathematics27, 2 (July,2007)

FLM PublishingAssociation, Edmonton,Alberta,Canada

be true,which is taughtto them in preparationfor examinations. It is not seen as a process; that is, as what
mathematiciansdo. Instead,studentsare preoccupiedwith,
"[...] dilemmas about their performanceratherthan with
mathematicaldilemmas"(Lave, 1997,p. 31) andthese dilemmas influence learners'everyday mathematicalactivity in
the classroom "[...] as they strive to succeed and in the
(ibid.,p. 3 1).
processgenerateappearancesof understanding"
Recenteducationalreformsin the UK, includingnational
mathematicsstrategies (DfEE, 1999; DfES 2006), performance management relating to test data and inspection
procedures,have all focused on elementsof performance,be
it of teachersor students.Kelly (2006) suggests thatteacher
expertiseis definedby the workingpracticesto which it pertainsandarguesthatthe currentinstrumentalclimaterenders
morelikely the adoptionby teachersof instrumentalstances
to theirwork.Teachersset targetsfor studentimprovement,
providestudentswith short-term,achievablelearningobjectives, managelessons efficiently to addressthese objectives
and therebyraise students'test scores. This is explicitly an
assessmentdrivenmodel, with assessmentembodiedin pencil and papertests. In such a climate, it is much less likely
thatteacherswill feel inclinedor able to focus on whatLave
(1997) calls "mathematicaldilemmas".
Gainingexpertisein communitiesof mathematiciansdiffers fromgainingexpertiseas a studentor teacher,involving
becominga full participantin the norms,discourseandpractices of whatmathematiciansdo ratherthanof whatstudents
andteachersdo. Of course,whatit meansto do mathematics
is not universally agreed (e.g., Hersh, 1998), but here we
take a view in line with Solomon (1998) that
we can picturemathematicsas a unified practiceconstituted by socially recognised aims, methods and
solution types which are operationalisedvia specific
rules of calculation.(Solomon, 1998, p. 380)
This concurs with Schoenfeld's (1985) and Lave's (1997)
view that mathematicsis a form of activity, argumentation
and social discourse. Since mathematicsis seen as fundamentallya social enterprise,access to ideas comes through
social means and hence,
the teacher'staskis not merelyto pointout whatalready
exists,butto inductchildrenintotalkingmathematically
about it [...] they do not learnfrom talk, they learn to
talk. (Solomon, 1998, p. 384, emphasisin original)
In addition,learningmathematicsneeds to include learning
to see the opportunityto do mathematics(Stewart,1997) and
giving childrenaccess to a mathematicalgenre (van Oers,
2001). Thus,the pictureof schools as communitiesof practice differs greatly from what might be considered to be a
communityof mathematicians(Schoenfeld, 1996).

Ways of knowing

In orderto understandthe implicationof these differences

between formal learningcommunitiesand communitiesof
mathematiciansit is necessaryto makea distinctionbetween
knowledge and knowing within them. Lave and Wenger
(1991), Wenger(1998) andBillett (2001) arguefor a view of
both coming to knowand knowing-in-practiceas processes

which, ratherthan lying entirely with the individual, are

distributedacross all participantsin social settings (including, in the case of the mathematicsclassroom,teachersand
students). These ways of knowing relate both to the conceptual and the physical resources available. Within any
situation,negotiationsof meaning result in knowledgeable
activity on the partof participantsin the lesson, which we
call knowing, and which is socially sharedand distributed
acrossparticipantsandresources.In relationto formallearning in schools, teachers in classrooms teach their students
knowledge of mathematicsthroughthe practices of classrooms. Thus, their students come to know mathematicsas
studentsplaced as learnersin mathematicsclassrooms - as
pupils. Theirway of knowing is that of pupils because they
engage with mathematicalknowledge throughthe working
practicesof pupils. As Wenger(1998) puts it, all too often,
"school learningis just learningschool", (p. 267)
Therewill, of course,be differentways of knowingmathematics;as a pupil,an academic,a researcher,an accountant,
an engineer and so on. Each situation has, associated with
it, a different set of resources, affordingopportunitiesand
constrainingthe participantsin different ways in terms of
their negotiationof meaning. From each context come different ways of knowing mathematics. In the English
education system differences have been played out in an
apparenttension in the school curriculumover the last 150
years, namely, "betweenaccurateuse of calculatingproceduresand the possession of 'numbersense' which underlies
the abilityto applysuch proceduressensibly"(Brown, 1999,
p. 3). The distinction between different ways of knowing
mathematicsalso raisesa pointto do with the authenticityof
differentforms of mathematicalactivity.That the situation
describedby Brown vis--vis the school curriculumis seen
as a tension is the resultof holding a view regardingthe relative authenticity of each stance. If some forms of
mathematicalbehaviour are seen as more authentic, then
othersmust,per se, be seen as less so. It is importantto state
that, here, we view all forms of mathematicalbehaviouras
equally authenticwhen viewedfrom their own perspective.
However,one of the purposesof the work we are undertaking is to examine the tensions that can arise when thereis a
mismatchbetween the situationalcontext and the espoused
purposes of a mathematical activity. Our question is not,
whichform of mathematicsis better? It is, rather,what are
the characteristicfeatures of differentforms of mathematics and what do they offer? In carrying out a theoretical
explorationof these issues here, we use the three(idealised)
contexts of school classroom, research community and
mathematicsmasterclass.

Learning, identity and situation

Anotherinsightfrom communities-of-practiceperspectives,
theimplicationof differences
helpfulforfurtherunderstanding
between formal learningcommunitiesand communitiesof
concernshow learningin a communityrelates
mathematicians,
to participants'
changingidentities.Wenger(1998) claimsthat
"becauselearningtransformswho we are and what we can
do, it is an experienceof identity"(p. 215). Furthermore,
forms of identification also shape what is negotiable
35

and to what extent it is so. Membership is therefore

both enabling and limiting of identity; it is both a
resourceand a cost. (Wenger,1998, p. 207)
Accordingly,
our identities form in [a] kind of tension between our
investmentin variousforms of belonging and our ability to negotiate the meanings that matter in those
contexts, (ibid., p. 188)
As Bakhtin (1981) has proposed, the implicit and explicit
goals of any communitytend to create either an authoritative discourse, "which comes as a given, fused with the
authorityto which it gives expression" (Barnes and Todd,
1995,p. 157) or an internallypersuasivediscourse,in which
ideas are developedjointly from the differencesof opinion
broughtto the discourse.
For Wenger (1998), the process of identification is a
process of becoming. However, since identities are formed
throughparticipationin a community,learningalso requires
a 'place' within which to participate- learning and situation are also entwined.Consequently,
to supportlearning is not only to supportthe process
of acquiringknowledge,but also to offer a place where
new ways of knowing can be realized in the form of
such an identity,(p. 215)
In addition to notions of membership and place, Boaler
(2005) suggests subject disciplines have a role in shaping
communities through their disciplinary agency. Novice
mathematiciansdo not, initially,have access to this agency,
implying a role for the expert in modelling the discipline
with them and so affording them the agency it offers
(Solomon, 1998).
In the case of English mathematics classrooms, recent
curricularinitiatives, especially the National Numeracy
Strategy(DfEE, 1999)andits successorthe PrimaryNational
Strategy (DfES, 2006), have encouragedteachers to focus
on promotingspecific behavioursin an attemptdeliberately
to increasestudents'mathematicaldiscourse.However,contraryto expectations,suchattemptsseem to havecompounded
the situation,increasingthe structureof classroom activity
and behaviour,and decreasingopportunitiesfor childrento
participatefreely and extensively (Brown, Askew, Millett
and Rhodes, 2003; Burns and Myhill, 2004; Hardman,
Smith,Mroz and Wall, 2003; Pratt,2006a). Fromthe sociocultural perspective, two related issues result. First, the
attention of the classroom community tends to be on the
learning seen to take place within (individual) minds as a
result of the task undertaken.It is not on the engagement
with, and practices involved in, the task itself. Put another
way, the purpose of classroom tasks is to learn something
that can be understoodfrom the task, not to learn how to
achieve the task itself. The focus is on engaging with mathematical knowledge throughknowing how to be a pupil in
orderto become betterat being a pupil.
The teacher does not, therefore, on the whole, act as a
model mathematicianfor mathematicalpracticesfor the student to imitateandbecome; ratherthey model teaching - or
at best they model how the abstractmathematicalobjective
36

for the lesson can be learntfromthe taskundertaken,andfor

which it was designed. In this sense, expertteachersarenot
the same as expertmathematicians(LaveandWenger,1991,
p. 99). Of course,this is inevitable,andteacherswill always
be forced to balancethe extent to which they can operateas
expertmathematicians,as expertteachersand as a 'model'
for how to be an expertpupil.
To summarisethe argumentso far,learning,in the formof
is relatedto both 'place'and 'experidentity-transformation,
tise', andchangesin these elementswill alterthe affordances
and constraintsfor participantsin terms of their identification with certainpracticesand as particularparticipantsin a
situation.Furthermoreit will affecttheirnegotiabilitywithin
the same situation (Wenger, 1998). In the case of mathematics, the particularissue of interestrelating to variation
in affordances and constraints is the extent to which this
changes the participants'view of the purposeand natureof
the subject - between knowing it as a rule-boundcollection
of knowledge, or as a way of coming to know a discipline.
Pimm (1987) has suggested a useful analogy here between
learningmathematicsand learning a foreign language. He
points out that a new language can be learnt by means of
memorisingvocabularyand grammaticalrules andthen trying to apply these, or by attemptingsimply to speak it and
learningit throughuse. The key distinction,he suggests, is
one of intent.In the formersituationthe learningis drivenby
a desire to accumulateinformation,and success is seen in
terms of quantityand application;in the latter it is driven
by a desire to communicateeffectively.Learningmathematics can similarly be driven by a desire to accumulate
knowledgefor the benefitof test scores, or by the desirebetter to be able to communicatemathematicalideas (eitherto
othersor, with increasingclarity,to oneself), thus, engaging
in meaningmaking.

Managing situations for learning

Socio-culturalinsights suggest thatbecomingan expertin a

particularcommunityinvolves identifyingmoreclosely with
that community,and expert students in communities such
as mathematicsclassroomswill differ from expertsin other
communitiesthatmake use of similarmathematicalknowledge for purposes other than engaging in school tasks. To
explore such differenceswe might ask how ways of knowing are similar, and how they differ, across participantsin
communities that engage with mathematical knowledge
through different forms of practice. In particular,what is
the variation,across communities,of:
the implicit and explicit goals of participants
the forms of expertiseavailableto novices
the forms of practice

the discourse?

In Figure 1, we use the questionsabove to map the features

of two hypotheticalcommunities,a mathematicsclassroom
anda communityof researchmathematicians,which engage
with mathematicalknowledge through different forms of
practice,so as to comparethe two. This mappingis basedon
our own analysis as presentedin this article, togetherwith
those of Schoenfeld (1996), Lave (1997), Julie (2002) and

Wedege(2002). These communitiesare, of course,idealised

constructions;we make no attemptto assert their 'reality'
in any sense, or to judge theirvalidity and merits.
Hybrid communities
Such a view is relatively straightforwardif we assume idealised communities in which the norms, discourses and
practicesremainstable. Needless to say, most situationsdo
not fit these ideals and arein a constantstate of flux. A number of factors influence change, not least of which is
participants'iterativeengagementin the work of communities. Furthermore,participantsmay be membersof several
such communitiesandthusbringways of knowingto bearin
differentsocial situations.
We can, of course, intentionallyform hybrids of distinct
communities, deliberately adopting particularfeatures of
each using a Wengerianperspective.Indeed,we believe such
a move could help us addresssome key issues for educators;
how to describea clear role for the teacherin such communities and/orhow best to structureeducative participation.

Though he discusses some "dimensions of educational

design",Wenger(1998) tacklesneitherof these issues in any
depth.
An example of one such hybridis the 'masterclass'.Typically, 'masterclasses' involve novices (pupils, perhaps)
working alongside experts (a university mathematicsprofessor, perhaps)within an authenticactivity,with the expert
providingformativecomment, often in the form of modelling of practices,for the novice. Key featuresof the situation
might be: engagement in an activity which is authenticin
terms of the working practice of the discipline; the expert
selecting appropriateareasfor focus so as to allow novices
opportunitiesto considermathematicaldilemmas;the expert
demonstratingexpertisein the practiceshim/herself,though
also in instructingthe novice duringthis engagement;attention paid to the (developing) quality of performancein the
task itself and not solely in relation to the resultantlearning, for which the task acts as a vehicle; a focus on the
authorityof mathematicsitself as opposedto the authorityof
the teacherprevalentin most classrooms(Pratt,2006b).

Figure1: Mappingthefeatures of idealisedmathematicalcommunities.

37

'Masterclass' communities offer norms, discourses and

practicesthatare differentfrom those in classrooms,resulting in different affordancesand constraintsoffered to and
imposed on participants. Crucially, they might allow for
greaternegotiabilityand more discursiveways of knowing.
Of course, such elements of any communityare difficult to
control with any certainty,for a number of reasons: small
changes in discourse can create major shifts in terms of
affordances and constraints felt by students (Pratt, 2006;
Black, 2004); participantsmay find it hard to change patternsof behaviourthatarewell embedded- expertsdrawing
back from too much deliberateteaching, or childrenfalling
into submissive patternsof behaviour,perhaps.More fundamentally,though, a communitygains its coherence from
the meaningsgeneratedbetween its participants,with meaning from a socio-culturalperspectiveseen as "an emergent
propertyof joint coordinatedaction"(Gergen,1999, p. 145),
not as a productof individualminds.
Nevertheless, this does not preventattemptsbeing made
deliberately to alter an environment,particularlyin terms
of the individual/socialorientationof the learning, and the
form and extent of the focus on assessment. The community suggested above would be neither a community of
mathematiciansnor a school mathematicscommunity;the
'masterclass' is a hybrid, and is mapped in Figure 2. It is
importantto note that this map representsjust one of many
differentformsthatthe communitymighttake,andis simply
illustrativeof the idea. It is thereforeone of a range of possible hybrids, the natureof each depending on its position

in relation to, amongst other things, the range of features

described in Figure 1 and the way that these are (refashioned by participants.However, althoughwe have made a
numberof distinctions in relation to various mathematical
communities, we conjecture that assessment is a primary
factor and one that is more likely to link the 'masterclass'
to a researchenvironmentthan to a formal schooling environment.

Methodological implications

This theoretical paper has helped us in understandingthe

natureof mathematicalcommunities.We arenow beginning
to explorethe issuesraisedempiricallyandarecurrentlyin the
early stages of examiningthe ways in which childrencome
to know mathematicsthroughdifferentkindsof community.
Here is not the place for a full account of the methodological issues we face, but it is perhaps fair to say that
researchersadoptingsocio-culturalperspectiveshave made
more progress in theoretical terms than methodological
ones. Such a state is not surprisinggiven the complexities
that the stance implies. Socio-cultural perspectives challenge cognitivism on epistemological grounds, reflecting
their social constructionistratherthan objectivist views of
knowledge and knowing. Thus these perspectivesare antiessentialist:
Since the social world,includingourselvesas people, is
the product of social processes, it follows that there
cannotbe any given determinednatureto the world or
people. (Burr,1995, p. 5)

Figure2: Mappingthefeatures of a hypotheticalmasterclasscommunity.

38

Indeed, socio-cultural perspectives are also anti-realist:

they deny our knowledge is a direct perception of reality,
rather,"we constructourown versionsof reality[as a culture
or society] between us", (ibid., p. 6) Given these observations, developing research approachesthat are consistent
with the socio-culturalpositionmakesmanydemandson the
researcher.It is our view that any adoptedapproachneeds,
somehow, to explore the complexities of communities at
the level of structures,grouprelationsand individuals'lived
experiences;and focus in these explorationson discourse,
interactionandsocial practices,consideringlanguageto be a
form of social action.
Final comments
If gaining expertiseinvolves becoming a full participantin
a community,then the form of expertise developed by participants is dependent on the nature of the community in
question.The socio-culturalperspectiveadoptedin this article providesa frameworkfor understandingdilemmasoften
associated with schooling, particularly those to do with
forms of expertise, transferand applicability;issues which
cognitivistperspectivesfind hardto resolve. It allows us to
considerthe dominantcharacteristicsof variousmathematical communities, to discern different forms of expertise,
and so design hybrid communities according to our preferredfeaturesof expertise.However,an importantcaveatis
thatthis is not to assume a causal link between community
and identity.As Wenger (1998) states, and for the reasons
outlinedin this article:
[o]ne can design roles, but one cannotdesign the identities that will be constructed through these roles,
(p. 229)
Nevertheless, for such hybrid communities to be successful, a numberof tensions need resolving. Particularareas
for futureexplorationby researchersand teachersinclude:
the dynamics of such groups - including a recognition of how student non-participation and
marginalisation(Wenger,1998, p. 165) can be met
and challengedso as to build mutualtrustbetween
participants
studentsubversion,which leads to a narrowingand
routinizing of the work of such communities,
specifically in relation to non-participation, but
also in terms of the renegotiation of positions in
communities

conflicting student identities experienced by students working in both formal learning and
'masterclass'situations,andthe effect andimplications of these, and

teachers'experiencesof attemptingto workin both

schooling and 'masterclass'contexts, the obstacles
they face and the approacheswhich they find helpful in tacklingthese obstacles.
Consideringexpertisein this way can offer teachersinsights
into theirrole within a formallearningcommunity.Furthermore, by being mindful of the socio-culturalelements of a

situation, teachers might be able to exert some influence

over the community, consciously altering the forms of
knowledge and the ways of knowing available to learners.
Evidencethatthis is possible has alreadybeen providedby a
numberof projects(Boaler, 1997), thoughthese same studies have also pointed to the difficulty of maintaining
alternativeapproachesto teaching and learning in assessment driven climates. Importantly,teachersmay be able to
perceive more clearly tensions between espoused educational purposesand actualpracticesand become betterable
to matchthe two.
Of course, if mainstreamschooling does not allow the
flexibility for teachersto take such action, hybridcommunities might still be set up alongside school classes in the
form of clubs, online environments,'masterclasses'and so
on. If this is to happen,it will be importantthatwe can map
out whatsuch opportunitiesaffordlearnersandtherebyhave
greaterconfidencethatthey aremakinga useful contribution
to our students'mathematicallearning.

Notes
[1] Mercer (1995) makes a useful distinction between educational discourse^the discourseused in the act of teachingand learning,andeducated
discourse, which describes the effective use of language for thinkingand
communicatingwithin any particulardomain.

References
Bakhtin, M. (1981) The dialogic imagination,Austin, TX, University of
Texas Press.
Barnes, D. and Todd, F. (1995) Communicationand learning revisited.
Makingmeaning throughtalk, Portsmouth,UK, Boynton/CookePublishers.
Bennett, N., Desforges, C, Cockburn,A. and Wilkinson, B. (1984) The
qualityof pupil learningexperiences,London,UK, Erlbaum.
Billett, S. (2001) 'Knowing in practice: re-conceptualising vocational
expertise,Learningand Instruction11(6), 431-452.
Black, L. (2004) 'Teacher-pupil talk in whole class discussions and
processes of social positioning within the primaryschool classroom',
Languageand Education18(5), 347-360.
Boaler, J. (1997) Experiencingschool mathematics:teaching styles, sex,
and setting, Buckingham,UK, Open UniversityPress.
Boaler, J. (2002) 'The development of disciplinaryrelationships:knowledge, practice and identity in mathematics classrooms', For the
Learningof Mathematics22(1), 42-47.
Brown,M. (1999) 'Swings of the pendulum',in Thompson,I. (ed.), Issues
in teachingnumeracyin primaryschools, Buckingham,UK, OpenUniversity Press.
Brown,M, Askew,M, Millett,A. andRhodes,V. (2003) 'Thekey roleof educational research in the development and evaluation of the National
NumeracyStrategy',BritishEducationalResearchJournal29(5), 655-672.
Burns,C. andMyhill, D. (2004) 'Interactiveor inactive?A considerationof
the natureof interactionin whole class teaching', CambridgeJournal
of Education34(1), 35-49.
Burr,V. (1995) An introductionto social constructionism,London, UK,
Routledge.
Desf orges, C. and Cockburn,A. (1987) Understandingthe mathematics
teacher, London,UK, Falmer.
DfEE (1999) The national numeracy strategy; frameworkfor teaching
mathematicsfrom receptionto year 6, London,UK, DfEE.
DfES (2005) Extendedschools: access to opportunitiesand servicesfor all.
A prospectus, http://publications.teachernet.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/1408-2005PDF-EN-01.pdf,accessed 10thNovember,2006.
DfES (2006) Primaryframeworkfor literacyand mathematics:introduction,
http://www.standards.dfes .go v.uk/primaryframeworks/introduction,
accessed 3rd March,2007.
Doyle, W. (1983) 'Academic work', Review of EducationalResearch53,
159-200.
[The rest of the referencescan befound on page 21 (ed.)]

39