Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education

• Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archoudidou, A., Kim, S., Retznitskaya, A., Tillmanns, M., & Gilbert, L. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition and Instruction, 19, 1-46. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1901_1
• Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Argumentation, computer support, and the educational context of confronting cognitions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn (pp. 1-25). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0781-7_1
• Asterhan, C., & Schwarz, B. (2016). Argumentation for learning: Well-trodden paths and unexplored territories. Educational Psychologist, 51, 164-187. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458
• Ayalon, M., & Even, R. (2016). Factors shaping students’ opportunities to engage in argumentative activity. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14, 575-601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9584-3
• Ayalon, M., & Hershkowitz, R. (2018). Mathematics teachers’ attention to potential classroom situations of argumentation. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 49, 163-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.11.010
• Azmon, S., Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. B. (2011). The impact of teacher-led discussions on students’ subsequent argumentative writing. In Proceedings of the 35^th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education: Developing Mathematical Thinking (pp. 73-87).
• Baker, M. (2009). Argumentative interactions and the social construction knowledge. In N. Muller Mirza, & A. Perret-Clermon (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices. (pp. 127-144). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98125-3_5
• Baker, M. (2016). The negotiation of meaning in epistemic situations. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26, 133-149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0050-3
• Baker, M., Andriessen, J., & Schwarz, B. (2019). Collaborative argumentation-based learning. In N. Mercer, R. Wegerif, & L. Major (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of research on dialogic education (pp. 76-88). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429441677-8
• Billig, M. (1997). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge University Press.
• Bleiler, S., Thompson, D., & Krajcevski, M. (2014). Providing written feedback on students’ mathematical arguments: Proof validations of prospective secondary mathematics teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 17, 105-127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-013-9248-1
• Boero P., Dapueto C., & Parenti, L. (1996) Didactics of mathematics and the professional knowledge of teachers. In A. J. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1465-0_30
• Castro, W. F., Pino-Fan, L., & Velásquez-Echavarría, H. (2018). A proposal to enhance pre-service teachers noticing. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 14(11), em1569. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/92017
• Castro, W., Durango-Urrego, J., & Pino-Fan, L. (2021). Preservice teachers' argumentation and some relationships to didactic-mathematical knowledge features. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(9), em2002. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11139
• Cecchini, M., Tonucci, F., Pinto, M. A., & Dubs, E. (1972). Teacher training, pedagogical method and intellectual development. Instituto de Psicología [Institute of Psychology].
• Conner, A. (2008). Expanded Toulmin diagrams: A tool for investigating complex activity in classrooms. In O. Figueras, J. L. Cortina, S. Alatorre, T. Rojano, & A. Sepulveda (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of PME 32 and PME-NA XXX (pp. 361-368). Cinvestav-UMSNH
• Conner, A. (2022). Adaptive instruction that supports collective argumentation. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 66, 100969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2022.100969
• Conner, A., & Singletary, L. M. (2021). Teacher support for argumentation: An examination of beliefs and practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 52(2), 213-247. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc-2020-0250
• Conner, A., Singletary, L., Smith, R., Wagner, P., & Francisco, R. (2014). Teacher support for collective argumentation: A framework for examining how teachers support students’ engagement in mathematical activities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 86(3), 401-429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-014-9532-8
• Demiray, E., Isiksal-Bostan, M., & Saygi, E. (2022). Types of global argumentation structures in conjecture-generation activities regarding geometry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20, 839-860. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10172-3
• Erduran, S., Guilfoyle, L., & Park, W. (2022). Science and religious education teachers’ views of argumentation and its teaching. Research in Science Education, 52, 655-673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09966-2
• Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students’ collaborative argumentation within a socio-scientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209-237. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21076
• Forman, E., Larreamendy-Joerns, J., Stein, M., & Brown, C. (1998). “You’re going to want to find out which and prove it”: Collective argumentation in a mathematics classroom. Learning and Instruction, 8(6), 527-548. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00033-4
• Freeman, J. B. (2005). Systematizing Toulmin’s warrants: An epistemic approach. Argumentation, 19(3), 331-346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-005-4420-0
• Freinet, C. (1969). Para uma escola do povo [To a people’s school]. Presença [Presence].
• Gainsburg, J., Fox, J., & Solan, L. (2016). Argumentation and decision making in professional practice. Theory Into Practice, 55(4), 332-341. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1208072
• Gee, J. P. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideologies in discourses. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203944806
• Giannakoulias, E., Mastorides, E., Potari, D., & Zachariades, T. (2010). Studying teachers’ mathematical argumentation in the context of refuting students’ invalid claims. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 29, 160-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2010.07.001
• Goddu, G. C. (2011). Is ‘argument’ subject to the product/process ambiguity? Informal Logic, 31(2), 75-88. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v31i2.3098
• Godino, J. D., Batanero, C., & Font, V. (2007). The onto-semiotic approach to research in mathematics education. ZDM Mathematics Education, 39(1), 127-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-006-0004-1
• Godino, J. D., Font, V., Wilhelmi, M. R., & Castro, C. (2009) Aproximación a la dimensión normativa en Didáctica de la Matemática desde un enfoque ontosemiótico [An onto-semiotic approach to the normative dimension in mathematics education]. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 27(1), 59-76. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.3663
• Graff, G. (2003). Clueless in academe: How schooling obscures the life of the mind. Yale University Press.
• Hershkowitz, R., Tabach, M., Rasmussen, C., & Dreyfus, T. (2014). Knowledge shifts in a probability classroom: A case study coordinating two methodologies. ZDM Mathematics Education, 46, 363-387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0576-0
• Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L., & Schilling, S. G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 372-400. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.39.4.0372
• Hunter, A. (2001). Hybrid argumentation systems for structured news reports. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 16(4), 295-329. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269888901000285
• Joiner, R., Jones, S., & Doherty, J. (2008). Two studies examining argumentation in asynchronous computer mediated communication. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 31(3), 243-255. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437270802416848
• Kazemi, E., Ghousseini, H., Cordero-Siy, E., Prough, S., McVicar, E., & Fox, A. (2021). Supporting teacher learning about argumentation through adaptive, school-based professional development. ZDM Mathematics Education, 53, 435-448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01242-5
• Knipping, C., & Reid, D. (2015). Reconstructing argumentation structures: A perspective on proving processes in secondary mathematics classroom interactions. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education (pp.75-101). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9181-6_4
• Kosko, K., Rougee, A., & Herbst, P. (2014). What actions do teachers envision when asked to facilitate mathematical argumentation in the classroom? Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26, 459-476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-013-0116-1
• Krummheuer, G. (2011). Representation of the notion ‘‘learning-as-participation’’ in everyday situations of mathematics classes. ZDM Mathematics Education, 43, 81-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-010-0294-1
• Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Harvard University Press.
• Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287-315. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1503_1
• Lin, Pi-Jen., & Tsai, Wen-Huan. (2016). Enhancing students’ mathematical conjecturing and justification in third-grade classrooms: The sum of even/odd numbers. Journal of Mathematics Education, 9(1), 1-15.
• McAlister, S., Ravenscroft, A., & Scanlon, E. (2004). Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(3), 194-204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00086.x
• Metaxas, N., Potari, D., & Zachariades, T. (2009). Studying teachers’ pedagogical argumentation. In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou, & H. Sakonidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33^rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 121-128). PME.
• Metaxas, N., Potari, D., & Zachariades, T. (2016). Analysis of a teacher’s pedagogical arguments using Toulmin’s model and argumentation schemes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 93, 383-397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9701-z
• Molina, O., Font, V., & Pino-Fan, L. (2019). Estructura y dinámica de argumentos analógicos, abductivos y deductivos: Un curso de geometría del espacio como contexto de reflexión [Structure and dynamic of analogical, abductive and deductive arguments: A course on solid geometry as a context for reflection]. Enseñanza de las Ciencias [Science Education], 37(1), 93-116. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.2484
• Mueller, M., Yankelewitz, D., & Maher, C. (2014). Teachers promoting student mathematical reasoning. Investigations in Mathematics Learning, 7(2), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/24727466.2014.11790339
• Muller-Mirza, N., Perret-Clermont, A.-N., Tartas, V., & Iannaccone A. (2009). Psychosocial processes in argumentation. In N. Muller Mirza, & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds), Argumentation and education. Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 67-90). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98125-3_3
• Nardi, E., Biza, I., & Zachariades, T. (2012). ‘Warrant’ revisited: Integrating mathematics teachers’ pedagogical and epistemological considerations into Toulmin’s model for argumentation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(2), 157-173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9345-y
• Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463-466. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183944
• Pedemonte, B., & Balacheff, N. (2016). Establishing links between conceptions, argumentation and proof through the ck¢-enriched Toulmin model. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 41, 104-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2015.10.008
• Peldszus, A., & Stede, M. (2016). An annotated corpus of argumentative microtexts. In Argumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation (Vol. 2, pp. 801-816). College Publications.
• Pino-Fan, L., & Godino, J. D. (2015). Perspectiva ampliada del conocimiento didáctico-matemático del profesor [An expanded view of teachers’ didactic–mathematical knowledge]. PARADIGMA, 36(1), 87-109.
• Pino-Fan, L., Assis, A., & Castro, W. F. (2015). Towards a methodology for the characterization of teachers' didactic-mathematical knowledge. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(6), 1429-1456. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1403a
• Pino-Fan, L., Castro, W., & Font, V. (2022). A macro tool to characterize and develop key competencies for the mathematics teacher’ practice. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 21, 1407-1432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10301-6
• Pino-Fan, L., Godino, J., & Font, V. (2016). Assessing key epistemic features of didactic-mathematical knowledge of prospective teachers: the case of the derivative. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 21, 63-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-016- 9349-8
• Planas, N., García-Honrado, I., & Arnal-Bailera, A. (2018). El discurso matemático del profesor: ¿Cómo se produce en clase y cómo se puede investigar? [The teacher’s mathematical discourse: How is it produced in the classroom and how can it be researched?] Enseñanza de las Ciencias [Science Education], 36(1), 45-60. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.2240
• Rigotti, E., & Greco-Morasso, S. (2009). Argumentation as an object of interest and as a social and cultural resource. In N. Muller Mirza, & A. N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98125-3_2
• Rowland, T. (2000). The pragmatics of mathematics education: Vagueness in mathematical discourse. Falmer.
• Rowland, T., Huckstep, P., & Thwaites, A. (2005). Elementary teachers’ mathematics subject knowledge: The knowledge quartet and the case of Naomi. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8(3), 255-281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-005-0853-5
• Ruthven, K., & Hofmann, R. (2016). A case study of epistemic order in mathematics classroom dialogue. PNA Revista de Investigación en Didáctica de la Matemática [PNA Research Journal on Mathematics Didactics], 11(1), 5-33. https://doi.org/10.30827/pna.v11i1.6079
• Ryve, A. (2011). Discourse research in mathematics education: A critical evaluation of 108 journal articles. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42(2), 167-198. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.42.2.0167
• Sampson, V., & Schleigh, S. (2013). Scientific argumentation in biology: 30 classroom activities. National Science Teachers Association.
• Schoenfeld, A. H., & Kilpatrick, J. (2008). Towards a theory of proficiency in teaching mathematics. In D. Tirosh, & T. Wood (Eds.), Tools and processes in mathematics teacher education (pp. 321-354). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087905460_016
• Schwartz, B. B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 219-256. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_3
• Sfard A. (2020) Commognition. In S. Lerman (Eds.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0_100031
• Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
• Silverman, J., & Thompson, P. (2008). Toward a framework for the development of mathematical knowledge for teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(6), 499-511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-008-9089-5
• Simon, S. (2008). Using Toulmin’s argument pattern in the evaluation of argumentation in school science. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 31(3), 277-289. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437270802417176
• Solar, H., & Deulofeu, J. (2016). Condiciones para promover el desarrollo de la competencia de argumentación en el aula de matemáticas. [Conditions to promote the development of argumentation competence in the mathematics classroom]. Bolema, 30, 1092-1112. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-4415v30n56a13
• Staples, M., & Newton, J. (2016). Teachers’ contextualization of argumentation in the mathematics classroom. Theory into Practice, 55(4), 294-301. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1208070
• Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. (1995). Academic and out-of-class influences on students’ intellectual orientations. The Review of Higher Education, 19(1), 23-44. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.1995.0001
• Toro, J., & Castro, W. (2020). Condiciones que activan la argumentación del profesor de matemáticas durante la discusión de tareas en clase [Conditions that activate the argumentation of the mathematics teacher in classroom]. Revista Chilena de Educación Matemática, 12(1), 35-44. https://doi.org/10.46219/rechiem.v12i1.11
• Toulmin, S. (2007). Los usos de la argumentación [The uses of argument]. Ediciones Península [Peninsula Editions].
• van Eemeren, F., & Grootendorst, R. (2011). Una teoría sistemática de la argumentación. La perspectiva pragmadialéctica [A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach]. Editorial Biblos.
• van Eemeren, F., Grassen, B., Krabbe, E., Snoeck Henkemans, F., Verheij, B. & Wagemans, J. (2014). Handbook of argumentation theory. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5
• van Eemeren, F., Grootendorst, R. y Snoeck, F. (2006). Argumentación: Análisis, evaluación, presentación [Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation]. Editorial Biblos.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
• Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46, 71-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.003
• Willard, C. A. (1976). On the utility of descriptive diagrams for the analysis and criticism of arguments. Communication Monographs, 43, 308-319. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637757609375942
• Yackel, E. (2002). What we can learn from analyzing the teacher’s role in collective argumentation. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21, 21, 423-440. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(02)00143-8
• Yopp, D. (2012). Valuing informal arguments and empirical investigations during collective argumentation. PRIMUS, 22(8), 643-663. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2011.621164
• Zarefsky, D. (2014). Product, process, or point of view? In Rhetorical perspectives on argumentation. Argumentation library. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05485-8_6

APA

Castro, W. F., & Toro, J. A. (2023). Mathematics teacher argumentation in a didactic perspective. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(9), em2322. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13498

Vancouver

Castro WF, Toro JA. Mathematics teacher argumentation in a didactic perspective. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2023;19(9):em2322. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13498

AMA

Castro WF, Toro JA. Mathematics teacher argumentation in a didactic perspective. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2023;19(9), em2322. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13498

Chicago

Castro, Walter F., and Jorge A. Toro. "Mathematics teacher argumentation in a didactic perspective". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2023 19 no. 9 (2023): em2322. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13498

Harvard

Castro, W. F., and Toro, J. A. (2023). Mathematics teacher argumentation in a didactic perspective. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(9), em2322. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13498

MLA

Castro, Walter F. et al. "Mathematics teacher argumentation in a didactic perspective". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 19, no. 9, 2023, em2322. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13498