Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Justifying triangle shapes through their properties in argumentation

  • Published:
European Journal of Psychology of Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To illustrate primary students’ use of argumentation, this study reported on an analysis of elements in argumentation of 168 grade 5 students in Taiwan. This study adopted the van Hiele (vH) model as the main theoretical framework with relevant studies to show the development of argumentation. This study designed a geometric argumentation test (GAT) with four elements to evaluate students’ justification in argumentation, including premise, conclusion, mathematical knowledge (MK) and reasoning. The GAT has three tasks and each task has four items to show students’ use of argumentation. This study adopted the cluster analysis through four elements. The results showed that students performed better in the elements of premises and conclusions than in the elements of MK and reasoning, and these grade 5 students were grouped into three clusters. The names of three clusters from the basic to advanced levels were Naïve Argumentation, Initial Argumentation and Incomplete Empirical Argumentation. The significant finding was that students in this study had a similar trend with the results in TIMSS in 2011, 2015 and 2019. Students in the cluster of IEA were at Level 1, and students in the other two clusters were at Level 0 in the vH model. Students in each cluster had specific characteristics and the problems in each cluster were related to different factors. Finally, this study pointed out the limitations and addressed some suggestions for further researches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
€32.70 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Finland)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, Tsu-Nan Lee. The data are not publicly available due to ethical restrictions.

Code availability

Not applicable.

References

  • Arends, F., Winnaar, L., & Mosimege, M. (2017). Teacher classroom practices and mathematics performance in South African schools: A reflection on TIMSS 2011. South African Journal of Education, 37(3), 1362. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v37n3a1362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2016). Argumentation for learning: Well-trodden paths and unexplored territories. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 164–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA] (2015). Australian Curriculum: Mathematics. https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/. Accessed 11 Aug 2021.

  • Battista, M. T. (2007). The development of geometric and spatial thinking. In J. Frank, & K. Lester (Eds.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning:: a project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (II vol., pp. 843–905). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

  • Carrascal, B. (2015). Proofs, mathematical practice and argumentation. Argumentation, 29(3), 305–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9344-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cervantes-Barraza, J. A., Moreno, H., & Rumsey, C. (2020). Promoting mathematical proof from collective argumentation in primary school. School Science and Mathematics, 120(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clements, D. H., Swaminathan, S., Hannibal, M. A. Z., & Sarama, J. (1999). Young children’s concepts of shape. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(2), 192–212. https://doi.org/10.2307/749610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durand-Guerrier, V., Boero, P., Douek, N., Epp, S. S., & Tanguay, D. (2012). Argumentation and proof in the mathematics classroom. In G. Hanna & M. d. Villiers (Eds.), Proof and proving in mathematics education: the 19th ICMI study (Vol.15, pp. 349–368). Springer.

  • Duval, R. (1998). Geometry from a cognitive point of view. In C. Mammana & V. Villani (Eds.), Perspectives on the teaching of geometry for the 21st century: an ICMI study (Vol.5, pp. 37–51). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5226-6

  • Fuys, D. J., Geddes, D., & Tischler, R. W. (1988). The van Hiele model of thinking in geometry among adolescents. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

  • Fyfe, E. R., McNeil, N. M., Son, J. Y., & Goldstone, R. L. (2014). Concreteness fading in mathematics and science instruction: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 26(1), 9–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9249-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glassner, A., & Schwarz, B. B. (2005). The antilogos ability to evaluate information supporting arguments. Learning and Instruction, 15(4), 353–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glassner, A., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). What stands and develops between creative and critical thinking? Argumentation? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(1), 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2006.10.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glassner, A., Weinstock, M., & Neuman, Y. (2005). Pupils’ evaluation and generation of evidence and explanation in argumentation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(1), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904X22278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harel, G. (2013). Classroom-based interventions in mathematics education: Relevance, significance, and applicability. ZDM, 45(3), 483–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0503-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (1999). Justifying and proving in school mathematics: Student conceptions and school data, 1996. UK Data Service. https://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-4004-1

  • Heinze, A., Cheng, Y. H., & Yang, K. L. (2004). Students’ performance in reasoning and proof in Taiwan and Germany: Results, paradoxes and open questions. ZDM, 36(5), 162–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02655668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hersh, R. (1993). Proving is convincing and explaning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24(4), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01273372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, B. L., Breyfogle, M. L., & Dressler, J. A. (2009). The power of incorrect answers. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 15(4), 232–238. https://doi.org/10.5951/MTMS.15.4.0232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holton, D., Stacey, K., & FitzSimons, G. (2012). Reasoning: A dog’s tale. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 68(3), 22–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglis, M., Mejia-Ramos, J. P., & Simpson, A. (2007). Modelling mathematical argumentation: The importance of qualification. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-9059-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jerrim, J., Lopez-Agudo, L. A., & Marcenaro-Gutierrez, O. D. (2020). The association between homework and primary school children’s academic achievement. International evidence from PIRLS and TIMSS. European Journal of Education, 55(2), 248–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • K-12 Education Administration [K12EA] (2018). 12-year basic education in mathematics curriculum (Ministry of Education, Ed.). National Academy for Educational Research. https://www.naer.edu.tw/ezfiles/0/1000/attach/49/pta_18524_6629744_60029.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2019.

  • Kazemi, E., & Stipek, D. (2001). Promoting conceptual thinking in four upper-elementary mathematics classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 59–80. https://doi.org/10.1086/499693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(3), 459–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-013-0116-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laschke, C. (2013). Effects of future mathematics teachers’ affective, cognitive and socio-demographic characteristics on their knowledge at the end of the teacher education in Germany and Taiwan. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(4), 895–921. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9423-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., Jacobson, C., Thoyre, G., Kemeny, V., Strom, D., Horvath, J. … Koehler, M. (1998). Developing understanding of geometry and space in the primary grades. In R. Lehrer, & D. Chazan (Eds.), Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space (pp. 169–200). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Lehrer, R., Jenkins, M., & Osana, H. (1998). Longitudinal study of children’s reasoning about space and geometry. In R. Lehrer, & D. Chazan (Eds.), Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space (pp. 137–167). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Lin, F. L., Wang, T. Y., & Yang, K. L. (2018). Description and evaluation of a large-scale project to facilitate student engagement in learning mathematics. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 58, 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.03.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, P. J. (2018). The development of students’ mathematical argumentation in a primary classroom. Educação & Realidade (Education &Reality), 43(3), 1171–1192. https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-623676887

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Md Yunus, A. S., Ayub, M., & Hock, T. T. (2019). Geometric thinking of Malaysian elementary school students. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 1095–1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monaghan, F. (2000). What difference does it make? Children’s views of the differences between some quadrilaterals. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42(2), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1004175020394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in mathematics. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2016). TIMSS 2015 international results in mathematics. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study, Boston College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019 international results in mathematics and science. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/international-results/. Accessed 21 Feb 2022.

  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

  • Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 84–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.558816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prusak, N., Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. B. (2012). From visual reasoning to logical necessity through argumentative design. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(1), 19–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9335-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L. J., Glina, M., & Anderson, R. C. (2009). Measuring argumentative reasoning: What’s behind the numbers. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(2), 219–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.11.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. B., & Linchevski, L. (2007). The role of task design and argumentation in cognitive development during peer interaction: The case of proportional reasoning. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 510–531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 219–256. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, M. A. (1996). 1996/03/01). Beyond inductive and deductive reasoning: the search for a sense of knowing. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 30(2), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00302630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sung, Y. T., Tseng, F. L., Kuo, N. P., Chang, T. Y., & Chiou, J. M. (2014). Evaluating the effects of programs for reducing achievement gaps: A case study in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Education Review, 15(1), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-013-9304-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, T. L., & Yang, D. C. (2016). A comparative study of geometry in elementary school mathematics textbooks from five countries. European Journal of STEM Education, 1(3), 58. https://doi.org/10.20897/lectito.201658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C. J. (2004). The structures in geometric figures’ concepts and the processes of adjusting concepts for elementary and junior high schools’ students (NSC – 92-2521-S-152-004). Taiwan National Science Council.

  • Yang, D. C., Tseng, Y. K., & Wang, T. L. (2017). A comparison of geometry problems in middle-grade mathematics textbooks from Taiwan, Singapore, Finland, and the United States. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(7), 2841–2857. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00721a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, K. L., Hsu, H. Y., & Cheng, Y. H. (2022). Opportunities and challenges of mathematics learning in Taiwan: A critical review. ZDM. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01326-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Caroline Bardini for assistance with theoretical framework and methodology, and Emeritus Prof. Kaye Stacey and Dr. Max Stephens for comments that greatly improved the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Taipei Municipal Fu-Lin Elementary School, Taipei City, Taiwan

    Tsu-Nan Lee

Authors
  1. Tsu-Nan Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tsu-Nan Lee.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest/Competing interests

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Tsu-Nan Lee. Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. E-mail: tedbob51@gmail.com

Current themes of research:

Argumentation and reasoning; Mathematical Thinking.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology:

Above- and below-average students think differently: Their scientific argumentation patterns. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 34, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100607.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 1.77 MB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, TN. Justifying triangle shapes through their properties in argumentation. Eur J Psychol Educ 38, 733–749 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-022-00628-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-022-00628-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation