Journal of Literacy Research

Book Review: Symbolizing and Communicating in

Mathematics Classrooms: Perspectives on Discourse, Tools, and
Instructional Design

Roni Jo Draper Symbolizing and Communicating in Mathematics Class-

Brigham Young University rooms: Perspectives on Discourse, Tools, and Instructional
Design. Paul Cobb, Erna Yackel, & Kay McClain (Editors),
2000. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates
(10 Industrial Avenue, Mahwah, NJ 07430). Softcover,
411 pages.

Symbolizing and Communicating in Mathematics Classrooms:

Perspectives on Discourse, Tools, and Instructional Design, is a
collection of chapters by various researchers and theorists
interested in mathematics education and specifically in
thinking about how students become mathematical sym-
bol users. Cobb, Yackel, and McClain, the editors of the
book, assembled the various chapter authors together to
participate in a symposium on discourse, tools, and in-
structional design as related to mathematics learning and
teaching. Yackel explains in the introduction that,
The discussions [at the symposium] were perme-
ated by questions such as: How do symbols ac-
quire meaning? How is meaning achieved? What
do we mean by “meaning”? What role do sym-
bols play in the [mathematician’s] development
of mathematical concepts? What role do symbols
play in students’ mathematical learning? (p. 1)

As a literacy educator interested in issues related to

JLR content area literacy, I saw these questions as literacy
V. 35 No. 1
2003 questions or at least as parallel to the kinds of ques-
PP. 693-702 tions that permeate discussions about literacy and lit-
eracy education.

I began my professional teaching as a mathematics

teacher and became attracted to literacy because I was

Page 693
Book Review

interested in the very questions Yackel poses in the introduction. I came to see litera-
cy theories and methods as providing answers or at least opportunities to answer
these questions. However, I have found little reference to these kinds of questions in
the literacy research related to thinking and learning in mathematics classrooms.
Generally, the literature related to literacy in mathematics classrooms focuses on word
problems and the use of texts (i.e., mathematics textbooks, children’s literature, his-
tory of mathematics) in the mathematics classroom (Rudnitsky, Etheredge,
Freeman, & Gilbert, 1995; Siegel & Fonzi, 1995; Tanner & Casados, 1998).
Although this literature may address print literacy issues related to learning
mathematics, it does not address the issues raised by the contributors of
Symbolizing and Communicating in Mathematics Classrooms related to how students
attribute meaning to mathematical symbols and how students become mathe-
matical symbol users. These issues expand the questions literacy educators and
researchers should consider as they explore the role of literacy instruction in
mathematics classrooms.

The book is divided into two sections. The contributing authors of the first sec-
tion of the book offer their ideas and theories surrounding symbolizing, com-
municating, and mathematizing grounded in research done in mathematics
classrooms. The contributors of the second section of the book focus on in-
structional design implications for mathematics classrooms that support symbol-
izing, and communicating mathematics.

Theoretical Considerations
The authors use social semiotics and socio-cultural theories of learning to pro-
vide a foundation for describing how students become symbol users in mathe-
matics classrooms. At the heart of the semiotic theory used to frame the
discussions in the book is the idea that people do not have the ability to convey
meaning directly to other people. Instead, human beings endow objects with
meaning, and these socially negotiated and agreed upon meanings assist people
in making sense of their world and in communicating with one another. The
meanings that individuals create and attach to objects (signs, symbols, texts, and
so forth) are socially mediated and agreed upon by the individuals who create
and use the objects for communicative purposes.

To introduce the book and to frame the discussion of semiotics, Yackel defines
symbolizing as, “reasoning with physical materials, pictures, diagrams, computer
graphics, and verbal expressions, as well as with conventional and nonstandard
written symbols” (p. 15). This symbolization seems to have two purposes: (a) to

Page 694
 Journal of Literacy Research

assist the thinker by providing a place and means of recording thought, and (b)
to provide the thinker with a means of communicating thought to another
thinker. For the first purpose, any kind of symbolizing that makes sense to the
individual will work, because the symbols need not have a shared meaning. Cobb
points out that the first use of symbolizing is more than an aid for reasoning, but
rather an “integral aspect of [people’s] mathematical reasoning” (p. 19). However,
when symbolizing is used for communicative purposes the individual must rely
on socially agreed upon uses or conventional symbols to help other thinkers
recreate the meanings of the symbols.

In the first chapter of the theoretical section of the book, Sfard considers rea-
soning, meaning, and the role of symbolizing in the creation and communication
of meaning. She argues that symbolizing is not simply the result of thinking but
plays a role in the creation of meaning itself; her thesis is that users of mathe-
matic symbols symbolize meaning into existence. Sfard explains that the emer-
gence of the notion of function in the 16th century was preceded by mathematical
expressions (i.e., f(x)). Despite the use of the expressions, widespread doubts re-
mained among mathematicians about the exact meaning of the expressions and
the validity of their use. Sfard uses this example, and others like it from the his-
tory of mathematics and from research done in schools with learners of mathe-
matics, to point out that the meanings associated with the mathematical symbols
and expressions are born not simply from the meanings created prior to the first
use of the symbols but rather the meanings continue to evolve as thinkers use
and act with symbols. In making this claim, Sfard argues that meaning construc-
tion related to symbols and other mathematics texts is a discursive and ongoing
process that is predicated on the background knowledge, experience, expecta-
tions, and verifications of the symbol user.

Sfard’s discussion of symbolizing meaning into being leads nicely into Dörfler’s
discussion of meaning. Dörfler discusses the problems inherent in trying to de-
fine the term meaning. However, he finally settles on a definition of meaning that
is related to participation in a discourse: “a subject has grasped the meaning –
whatever this is – of a linguistic or symbolic entity [when] the subject has a
thorough command of its social use” (p. 101). For Dörfler, participation in math-
ematics discourse requires the adoption of an as-if attitude. This attitude allows
participants to consider mathematical models and symbols “as-if ” they actually
represented or stood for something real outside the discourse of mathematics,
even though this is not the case. Dörfler points out that, “a square is not the

Page 695
Book Review

marks on the paper but is one’s way of perceiving these marks” (p. 107). In liter-
acy terms, then, the marks on the paper used by a writer or read by a reader
stand for something else, a square. For Dörfler and other mathematicians, a
square only exists within the discourse of mathematics and remains an abstract
mathematical concept. Mathematics participants only have access to these ob-
jects through the discourse, which requires entrance into and engagement with
the discourse. Dörfler’s conclusion is that a learner of mathematics must rely on
the language and the conventional use of symbols in order to gain access to
mathematical discourse and meaning.

In his chapter on the appropriation of mathematical symbols, van Oers describes

Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of human behavior and development as it relates to
semiotic activity. This provides a framework for his discussions of symbolizing and
mathematizing. As van Oers explains, “mathematical activity (mathematizing) can be
conceived of as a special type of semiotic activity” (p. 152). Mathematizing occurs
when an observer uses mathematical symbols to reflect on and describe the inter-
relationship between objects given in a situation and the actions of those objects.
For instance, consider seven birds sitting on a roof and two birds coming to join
them. Van Oers explains that mathematizing this situation consists of considering
the objects in the situation (the birds), the mathematical objects given (the number
of birds given and joining), and the actions (the addition of more birds where addi-
tion can be symbolized with the operator-symbol +) and making a conscious judg-
ment that addition is the action inherent in this situation. Van Oers argues that
learners of mathematics should be given opportunities to explore and mathematize
situations using their own form of symbols (i.e., drawings, diagrams, manipulatives)
prior to the introduction of accepted mathematical symbols by a more informed
other. Van Oers’ description of mathematizing and symbolizing as semiotic activities
sounds very much like literate activity.

The last chapter in the theoretical section of the book, written by Nemirovsky and
Monk, explores the nature of symbolizing. The authors define symbolizing as the
“creation of a space in which the absent is made present and ready at hand” (p.
177). By way of example they describe a child who uses a stick as a horse – the child
rides the horse, feeds the horse, claims that the horse is lazy – and in creating the
make-believe horse (the stick), the child makes present the horse. Inherent in this
idea of “making the absent present” is the experiential nature of symbolizing by the
symbol user. They describe the nature of the space in which the absent is made

Page 696
 Journal of Literacy Research

present as “fusion” (p. 178) and the ways that the process occurs as “trail-making”
(p. 178). Fusion occurs when the child is willing to act as if the symbol (the stick)
actually is the object it represents (the horse). Trail-making relates to the ability of
the child to interact (play) with the symbols in unscripted and spontaneous ways.
Nemirovsky and Monk explain that both fusion and trail-making are necessary for
symbol use that is ongoing and open-ended. Such symbolization is necessary for
individual meaning making and for communicative purposes.

Implications for Instructional Design

The four chapters that make up this section of the book continue to address theo-
retical issues related to symbolizing and communicating in terms of instructional de-
sign implications. Rather than discuss the chapters individually, I will discuss
implications for instruction based on the two major recommendations made by the
authors. First, mathematics classrooms need to be organized in such a way as to
allow students to experience, discuss, and experiment with the mathematical con-
cepts and the symbols that represent these concepts. Second, mathematics teach-
ers must allow students to invent their own mathematical symbols and then move
students to conventional symbols used to mathematize real situations. These rec-
ommendations should resonate with literacy educators who recommend that stu-
dents be allowed to invent and create texts using their own voices and as natural
outgrowths of the social contexts in which students find themselves.

The authors generally agree to reject the transmission approach to teaching and
learning, which is characterized by traditional mathematics teaching or teaching
by telling. The authors suggest that rather than teachers attempting to provide
students direct access to concepts of mathematics through the symbols (as if the
symbols are the content), teachers should provide opportunities for students to
create, negotiate, and use symbols as a natural outgrowth of problem solving in
a social context. This kind of instruction is marked by teachers who value student
talk and questions and who provide for non-routine (complex) problems.
Gravemeijer, Cobb, Bowers, and Whitenack urge mathematics teachers to move
away from teaching mathematics that is isolated and separate from students’
lives. They call, instead, for mathematics instruction that is social and situated in
activity that requires students to think, communicate, and use mathematics and
symbols in authentic and meaningful ways. Bransford, Zeck, Schwartz, Barron,
and Vye discuss instructional design as the creation of “environments that invite
and sustain mathematical thinking” (p. 8). These authors advise teachers to help

Page 697
Book Review

students understand the usefulness, meanings, and significance of the various

tools (symbols) used in thinking about and communicating mathematics.

Gravemeijer, Cobb, Bowers, and Whitenack recommend that students be allowed

and encouraged to invent representations and thus symbolizing would stem from
the students’ need to think about and communicate the mathematics. They posit
that “it is while actually engaging in the activity of symbolizing that symboliza-
tions emerge and develop meaning within the social setting of the classroom” (p.
236). They suggest that once students have invented symbols and used their own
symbols to mathematize lived and real situations, teachers can guide students to
use conventional symbols to both think about and communicate mathematical
concepts. Lehrer, Schauble, Carpenter, and Penner echo this recommendation
when they suggest that learners of mathematics “must negotiate the conventions
of the representational system, sometimes inventing them as [they] go” (p. 337).
The challenge for mathematics teachers is knowing when and how to challenge
students away from invented symbolization/representation and toward conven-
tional forms of mathematical representation.

Recommendations for Literacy

Educators and Researchers
Literacy educators may wonder why a book dealing with issues related to math-
ematics education might be of interest to readers of JLR. Symbolizing and
Communicating can help literacy educators in three significant ways. First, it offers
literacy educators another way to view mathematics – a view of mathematics that
is socially and culturally negotiated and in flux – that may be different from the
way they currently consider mathematics. Second, it provides for literacy educa-
tors interested in working with mathematics teachers and comfortable with ex-
panding definitions of literacy and text ways to think about literacy in
mathematics classrooms. Finally, the book provides literacy researchers insights
into the kind of questions that are important to mathematics education re-
searchers, which can be helpful as literacy educators work to consider problems
and questions that cross educational domains.

Literacy educators who work to prepare teachers understand that content area
learning and literacy practices are shaped by the texts that students face in content
area classrooms (Moje, Dillon, & O’Brien, 2000). However, literacy educators may
have limited knowledge about the kinds of texts used in mathematics classrooms

Page 698
 Journal of Literacy Research

and the kinds of cognitive demands creating and negotiating mathematics texts
place on learners. This may be due in some part to the misconceptions that lit-
eracy educators may have about mathematics and mathematics texts. These mis-
conceptions include (but are not limited to) the notions that,

• Mathematics is a static and stable body of knowledge within which are lo-
cated signs and symbols each representing a single agreed-upon concept
or idea;
• Mathematics is relatively text-free, unless one counts word problems; and
• Mathematics learning is not about literacy. It is about thinking about
mathematics.
Paradoxically, literacy educators have expanded their definitions of literacy and
text to include practices that take place as natural parts of mathematics learning
and thinking. For example, definitions of literacy have evolved beyond simple
notions of reading and writing to include listening, speaking, viewing, and other
activities done in relation to texts within various social contexts. Similarly, the
notion of text has expanded from simple print material to anything people create
or use to make, represent, and/or convey meaning (Neilsen, 1998; Wade & Moje,
2000). While not all linguists agree that the creation of mathematics texts should
be considered writing in the strictest sense of the term (e.g., Halliday, 1996),
many literacy educators are willing to consider mathematics as one of several
forms of representation available to students (e.g., Kist, 2001).

Literacy educators seem comfortable considering definitions of literacy that include

mathematics; however, they may not understand what this means for literacy educa-
tion. Literacy educators may believe (and may suggest of their students – preservice
and inservice teachers) that mathematics texts like 2x - 4 = 18 and f(x) = x2 or even
1/ are texts which offer narrow bands of interpretation (unlike poetry or prose, which
2
offer wider bands of interpretation). In fact, literacy educators with limited mathe-
matics backgrounds may believe that mathematics texts offer no room for interpreta-
tion, that 1/2 is indisputable and understandable once the concept is taught and
experienced by students. However, as is argued by several authors of this book, math-
ematics texts, just like other texts, are interpreted by their readers and those inter-
pretations are mediated by the background, experience, and symbolic knowledge of
the reader. That the text 1/2 can be read by some as one out of two, or an amount or
portion that when copied twice results in a whole, or the result of taking a whole and
dividing into two equal parts, are just three different interpretations of the same text.

Page 699
Book Review

Halliday (1996) argues that mathematical symbols and texts do not represent le-
gitimate areas of concern for literacy educators and researchers as those texts are
not linked directly to linguistic translations. The example he offers is that of 2 +
2 = 4. He points out that this text can be read (translated linguistically) in a va-
riety of ways: Two plus two equals four, the sum of two and two is four, two in-
creased by two is four, or any number of other linguistic variations. He argues
that because there is such a variety of linguistic translations, literacy educators
and linguists should not concern themselves with mathematical texts or thinking
about interpreting these texts as reading. Literacy educators may find it easy to
agree with Halliday, especially those who are not interested in expanding litera-
cy texts beyond those of traditional print material. However, literacy educators
comfortable with broadening definitions of literacy, texts, and notions of reading
and writing must consider mathematical texts as locations for meaningful think-
ing and communicating. Furthermore, literacy educators must consider how
mathematics teachers can support their student’s negotiation, creation, and use
of mathematical symbolization for reasoning and communicating.

Similarly, mathematics educators may have limited conceptions of what reading,

writing, and literacy are as evidenced by Yackel’s discussion of performers’ inter-
pretations and hence performances of musical scores. Yackel compares and con-
trasts the stances, interpretations, and the performance of objectivist musicians
versus interpretivist musicians. Yackel explains that objectivists attempt to per-
form music as duplication of what the composer (author) intended, while inter-
pretivists use their knowledge and their expertise to interpret the score and
recreate it as an original performance. Yackel (citing Boulez) points out that the
interpretivists’ stance is performing that “. . . goes beyond ‘reading’ the signs and
symbols” (p. 3). However, literacy educators would argue that reading is about
going beyond the signs and the symbols. Yackel’s limited view of reading pro-
vides insight into the misunderstanding held by mathematics educators of litera-
cy and the related practices of reading, writing, listening, speaking, viewing,
performing, etc.

The authors offer definitions of symbolizing that are related to reasoning (symbol-
izing offers a space for thinking about mathematical concepts) and communicating
(offering opportunities to share thinking with self and others). This definition of
symbolizing as reasoning is compatible with Thorndike’s definition of reading as
reasoning (Harris & Hodges, 1995) and Gray’s notion of reading as a thought

Page 700
 Journal of Literacy Research

process wherein meaning is put into the symbols (Harris & Hodges, 1995).
However, it is unclear from these definitions if symbolizing is seen as purely a pro-
ductive process (akin to writing) or also as a consumptive process (like reading).
There was no discussion by any of the authors that students should be aided in
reading or making meaning from the mathematical representation created by an-
other author or whether this kind of reading could be considered symbolizing.

This book ultimately offers to literacy educators an insight into terms like sym-
bolizing, modeling, mathematizing, and representation as used by mathematics edu-
cators. By understanding these terms and considering the implications for
instructional design, literacy educators can begin building bridges between
themselves and mathematics educators. The contributors of Symbolizing and
Communicating in Mathematics Classrooms make clear that literacy educators may
be most helpful to mathematics teachers and their students if literacy educators
and researchers would consider questions like:

How do symbols acquire meaning? How is meaning achieved? What do we

mean by “meaning”? What role do symbols play in the (mathematician’s)
development of mathematical concepts? What role do symbols play in
students’ mathematical learning? (p. 1)

It is my belief that literacy educators are in a prime position to consider and seek
answers to these questions.

References
Halliday, M. A. K. (1996). Literacy and linguistics: A functional perspective. In R. Hasan, &
G. Williams (Eds.) Literacy in society (pp. 339-376). New York: Longman.
Harris, T. L., & Hodges, R. E. (Eds.) (1995). The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading
and writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Kist, W. (2001/2000). Beginning to create the new literacy classroom: What does the new
literacy look like? In J. A. Rycik & J. L. Irvin (Eds.), What adolescents deserve: A commit-
ment to students’ literacy and learning (pp. 226-239). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Moje, E. B., Dillon, D. R., & O’Brien, D. (2000). Reexamining roles of learner, text, and con-
text in secondary literacy. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 165-180.

Page 701
Book Review

Neilson, L. (1998). Playing for real: Performative texts and adolescent identities. In D. E.
Alvermann, K. A. Hinchman, D. W. Moore, S. F. Phelps, & D. R. Waff (Eds.),
Reconceptualizing the literacies in adolescents’ lives (pp. 3-26). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rudnitsky, A., Etheredge, S., Freeman, S. J. M., & Gilbert, T. (1995). Learning to solve addi-
tion and subtraction word problems through a structure-plus-writing approach.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 467-486.
Siegel, M., & Fonzi, J. M. (1995). The practice of reading in an inquiry-oriented mathe-
matics class. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 632-665.
Tanner, M. L., & Casados, L. (1998). Promoting and studying discussions in math classes.
Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 41, 342-350.
Wade, S. E., & Moje, E. B. (2000). The role of text in classroom learning. In M. L. Kamil, P.
B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume III
(pp. 609-627). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Page 702