Find out how to access previewonly content
Date:
06 Aug 2011
‘Warrant’ revisited: Integrating mathematics teachers’ pedagogical and epistemological considerations into Toulmin’s model for argumentation
 Elena Nardi,
 Irene Biza,
 Theodossios Zachariades
 … show all 3 hide
Rent the article at a discount
Rent now* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
Get AccessAbstract
In this paper, we propose an approach to analysing teacher arguments that takes into account field dependence—namely, in Toulmin’s sense, the dependence of warrants deployed in an argument on the field of activity to which the argument relates. Freeman, to circumvent issues that emerge when we attempt to determine the field(s) that an argument relates to, proposed a classification of warrants (a priori, empirical, institutional and evaluative). Our approach to analysing teacher arguments proposes an adaptation of Freeman’s classification that distinguishes between: epistemological and pedagogical a priori warrants, professional and personal empirical warrants, epistemological and curricular institutional warrants, and evaluative warrants. Our proposition emerged from analyses conducted in the course of a written response and interview study that engages secondary mathematics teachers with classroom scenarios from the mathematical areas of analysis and algebra. The scenarios are hypothetical, grounded on seminal learning and teaching issues, and likely to occur in actual practice. To illustrate our proposed approach to analysing teacher arguments here, we draw on the data we collected through the use of one such scenario, the Tangent Task. We demonstrate how teacher arguments, not analysed for their mathematical accuracy only, can be reconsidered, arguably more productively, in the light of other teacher considerations and priorities: pedagogical, curricular, professional and personal.
References
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching. What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.CrossRef
Bingolbali, E., & Monaghan, J. (2008). Concept image revisited. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68, 19–35.CrossRef
Biza, I., Christou, C., & Zachariades, T. (2008). Student perspectives on the relationship between a curve and its tangent in the transition from Euclidean geometry to analysis. Research in Mathematics Education, 10(1), 53–70.CrossRef
Biza, I., Nardi, E., & Zachariades, T. (2007). Using tasks to explore teacher knowledge in situationspecific contexts. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10, 301–309.CrossRef
Biza, I., Nardi, E., & Zachariades, T. (2009). Teacher beliefs and the didactic contract on visualisation. For the Learning of Mathematics, 29(3), 31–36.
Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Castela, C. (1995). Apprendre avec et contre ses connaissances antérieures: Un example concret, celui de la tangente [Learning with and in contradiction to previous knowledge: A concrete example, that of tangent]. Recherches en Didactiques des mathématiques, 15(1), 7–47.
Chevallard, Y. (1985). La transposition didactique [The didactic transposition]. Grenoble: La Pensée Sauvage Éditions.
Cook, S. D., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), 381–400.CrossRef
Evens, H., & Houssart, J. (2004). Categorizing pupils' written answers to a mathematics test question: 'I know but I can't explain'. Educational Research, 46(3), 269–282.CrossRef
Freeman, J. B. (2005a). Systematizing Toulmin’s warrants: An epistemic approach. Argumentation, 19(3), 331–346.CrossRef
Freeman, J. B. (2005b). Acceptable premises: An epistemic approach to an informal logic problem. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Giannakoulias, E., Mastoridis, E., Potari, D., & Zachariades, T. (2010). Studying teachers’ mathematical argumentation in the context of refuting students’ invalid claims. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 29, 160–168.CrossRef
Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (2007). Towards comprehensive perspectives on the learning and teaching of proof. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), The second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 805–842). USA: NCTM.
Herbst, P., & Chazan, D. (2003). Exploring the practical rationality of mathematics teaching through conversations about videotaped episodes: The case of engaging students in proving. For the Learning of Mathematics, 23(1), 2–14.
Hill, H. C., & Ball, D. L. (2004). Learning mathematics for teaching: Results from California's mathematics professional development institutes. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(5), 330–351.CrossRef
Hoyles, C., & Küchemann, D. (2002). Students' understanding of logical implication. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 51, 193–223.CrossRef
Inglis, M., & MejiaRamos, J. P. (2008). How persuaded are you? A typology of responses. Research in Mathematics Education, 10(2), 119–133.CrossRef
Inglis, M., MejiaRamos, J. P., & Simpson, A. (2007). Modelling mathematical argumentation: The importance of qualification. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66, 3–21.CrossRef
Jacobs, J. K., & Morita, E. (2002). Japanese and American teachers' evaluations of videotaped mathematics lessons. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(3), 154–175.CrossRef
Kennedy, M. M. (2002). Knowledge and teaching. Teachers & Teaching, 8(3/4), 355–370.CrossRef
Knuth, E. J. (2002). Secondary school mathematics teachers' conceptions of proof. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(5), 379–405.CrossRef
Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures (pp. 229–269). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Krummheuer, G. (2007). Argumentation and participation in the primary mathematics classroom: Two episodes and related theoretical abductions. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26(1), 60–82.CrossRef
Lampert, M. (1985). How do teachers manage to teach? Perspectives on problems in practice. Harvard Educational Review, 55(2), 178–194.
Leatham, K. R. (2006). Viewing mathematics teachers' beliefs as sensible systems. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9, 91–102.CrossRef
Leder, G., Pehkonen, E., & Törner, G. (Eds.). (2002). Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Miyakawa, T., & Herbst, P. (2007). Geometry teachers' perspectives on convincing and proving when installing a theorem in class. In T. Lamberg & L. R. Wiest (Eds.), 29th Annual Meetings of PMENA (pp. 366–373). Lake Tahoe, NV: University of Nevada, Reno.
Pedemonte, B. (2005). Quelques outils pour l’analyse cognitive du rapport entre argumentation et démonstration [Some tools for the cognitive analysis of the relation between argumentation and demonstration]. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 25, 313–348.
Pedemonte, B. (2007). How can the relationship between argumentation and proof be analysed? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66, 23–41.CrossRef
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
Stephan, M., & Rasmussen, C. (2002). Classroom mathematical practices in differential equations. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21(4), 459–490.CrossRef
Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 151–169.CrossRef
Thompson, A. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 122–127). New York: Macmillan.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Weber, K., & Alcock, L. (2005). Using warranted implications to understand and validate proofs. For the Learning of Mathematics, 25, 34–38.
Whitenack, J. W., & Knipping, N. (2002). Argumentation, instructional design theory and students' mathematical learning: A case for coordinating interpretive lenses. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21(4), 441–457.CrossRef
Yackel, E. (2001). Explanation, justification, and argumentation in A mathematics classroom. In M. v. d. HeuvelPanhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 1, pp. 9–24). Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Yackel, E. (2002). What we can learn from analyzing the teacher's role in collective argumentation. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21(4), 423–440.CrossRef
 Title
 ‘Warrant’ revisited: Integrating mathematics teachers’ pedagogical and epistemological considerations into Toulmin’s model for argumentation
 Journal

Educational Studies in Mathematics
Volume 79, Issue 2 , pp 157173
 Cover Date
 20120201
 DOI
 10.1007/s106490119345y
 Print ISSN
 00131954
 Online ISSN
 15730816
 Publisher
 Springer Netherlands
 Additional Links
 Topics
 Keywords

 Teacher knowledge and beliefs
 Freeman’s classification of warrants
 Toulmin’s model for argumentation
 Practical rationality of teaching
 Visualisation
 Example use
 Tangent line
 Industry Sectors
 Authors

 Elena Nardi ^{(1)}
 Irene Biza ^{(2)}
 Theodossios Zachariades ^{(3)}
 Author Affiliations

 1. School of Education, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK
 2. Mathematics Education Centre, Loughborough University, Loughborough, LE11 3TU, UK
 3. Department of Mathematics, University of Athens, Panepistimiopolis, 15784, Athens, Greece