Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 93, Issue 3, pp 383–397 | Cite as

Analysis of a teacher’s pedagogical arguments using Toulmin’s model and argumentation schemes

  • N. Metaxas
  • D. Potari
  • T. Zachariades


In this article, we elaborate methodologies to study the argumentation speech of a teacher involved in argumentative activities. The standard tool of analysis of teachers’ argumentation concerning pedagogical matters is Toulmin’s model. The theory of argumentation schemes offers an alternative perspective on the analysis of arguments. We propose an integrated way of analysis employing Toulmin’s model and argumentation scheme, based on Walton’s taxonomy. We examine the change of pedagogical argumentation of a teacher that participated in a graduate course that was based on the analysis of hypothetical classroom scenarios on the teaching of calculus in high school. By exhibiting our methodological analysis in a particular case, we show that by adopting two different analytical perspectives, we gain a deeper understanding of the structure and quality of teachers’ argumentation on pedagogical matters. The integration of the two qualitative methodologies could help identify several aspects of possible construction of knowledge in argumentative activities.


Argumentation scheme Toulmin’s model Argumentation analysis 


  1. Aberdein, A. (2007). Fallacies in mathematics. Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 27, 1–6.Google Scholar
  2. Ainley, J., & Pratt, D. (2002). Purpose and utility in pedagogic task design. In A. Cockburn & E. Nardi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 17–24). Norwich: PME.Google Scholar
  3. Aliseda, D. (2003). Mathematical reasoning vs. abductive reasoning: A structural approach. Synthese, 134, 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnett, C. (1991). Building a case-based curriculum to enhance the pedagogical content knowledge of Mathematics teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 42, 263–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biza, I., Nardi, E., & Zachariades, T. (2007). Using tasks to explore teacher knowledge in situation-specific contexts. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10, 301–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  8. Evens, H., & Houssart, J. (2004). Categorizing pupils’ written answers to a mathematics test question: ‘I know but I can’t explain’. Educational Research, 46, 269–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Finnochiaro, M. (2008). Arguments, meta-arguments, and metadialogues: A reconstruction of krabbe, govier, and woods. Argumentation, 21, 253–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Forman, E. A., Larreamendy-Joerns, J., Stein, M. K., & Brown, C. A. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Freeman, J. B. (2005). Systematizing Toulmin’s warrants: An epistemic approach. Argumentation, 19(3), 331–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Giannakoulias, E., Mastoridis, E., Potari, D., & Zachariades, T. (2010). Studying teachers’ mathematical argumentation in the context of refuting students’ invalid claims. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 9, 160–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Godden, D., & Walton, D. (2007). Advances in the theory of argumentation schemes and critical questions. Informal Logic, 27, 267–292.Google Scholar
  14. Hancock, D. R., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Doing case study research: A practical guide for beginning researchers. New York: Teachers College.Google Scholar
  15. Hershkowitz, R., Schwarz, B. B., & Dreyfus, T. (2001). Abstraction in context: Epistemic actions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 195–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Inglis, M., Mejia-Ramos, J. P., & Simpson, A. (2007). Modelling mathematical argumentation: The importance of qualification. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Juthe, A. (2005). Arguments by analogy. Argumentation, 19, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Knipping, C. (2008). A method for revealing structures of argumentation in classroom proving processes. ZDM The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40(3), 427–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Knipping, C., & Reid, D. (2013). Revealing structures of argumentations in classroom proving processes. In A. Aberdein & I. J. Dove (Eds.), The argument of mathematics (pp. 119–146). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mason, J. (1998). Enabling teachers to be real teachers: Necessary levels of awareness and structure of attention. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1, 243–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 139–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Metaxas, N. (2015). Mathematical argumentation of students participating in a mathematics–information technology project. International Research in Education, 3(1), 82–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 (Vol. 4, pp. 121–128). Thessaloniki: PME.Google Scholar
  26. Nardi, E., Biza, E., & Zachariades, T. (2012). ‘Warrant’ revisited: Integrating mathematics teachers’ pedagogical and epistemological considerations into Toulmin’s model for argumentation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79, 157–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ohlsson, S. (1992). The cognitive skill of theory articulation: A neglected aspect of science education. Science & Education, 1, 181–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pease, A., & Aberdein, A. (2011). Five theories of reasoning: Inter-connections and applications to mathematics. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 20(1–2), 7–57.Google Scholar
  29. Pedemonte, B. (2007). How can the relationship between argumentation and proof be analysed? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66, 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pedemonte, B. (2008). Argumentation and algebraic proof. ZDM, 40(3), 385–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schwarz, B. (2009). Argumentation and learning. In N. Muller Mirza & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education. Theoretical foundations and practices. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Schwarz, B., Neumann, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith, M. S. (2001). Practice-based professional development for teachers of mathematics. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  34. Steele, M. (2005). Comparing knowledge bases and reasoning structures in discussions of mathematics and pedagogy. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8, 291–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Walter, J., & Johnson, J. (2007). Elementary teachers’ linguistic inventions and semantic warrants for mathematical inferences. In J. H. Woo, H. C. Lew, K. S. Park, & D. Y. Seo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31 st conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 233–240). Seoul: PME.Google Scholar
  37. Walton, D. (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Walton, D., & Reed, C. (2005). Argumentation schemes and enthymemes. Synthese, 145, 339–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yackel, E. (2001). Explanation, justification and argumentation in mathematics classrooms. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th international conference on the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp. 9–23). Utrecht: IGPME.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations