Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 97, Issue 1, pp 111–118 | Cite as

Book review: Baruch B. Schwarz and Michael J. Baker (Eds) (Foreword by L. B. Resnick with F. Schantz) (2017) Dialogue, Argumentation and Education: History, Theory and Practice

New York: Cambridge 316 pages Hardback ISBN 978-1-107-14181-0 RRP $110
  • Keith WeberEmail author

As its title suggests, Dialogue, Argumentation, and Education: History, Theory, and Practice is an ambitious volume. The authors, Baruch Schwarz and Michael Baker, attempt to integrate a large body of scholarship to develop a theory of how students can learn from argument, how classrooms should be arranged to foster productive argumentation, and how argumentation should be researched. The book is not about mathematics education per se; there are few explicit references to mathematics education in this volume. However, I believe that most mathematics educators will benefit from reading Dialogue, Argumentation, and Education because this book will expose them to the broader work on argumentation in the learning sciences, and suggest new theoretical perspectives and analytical lenses with which to investigate argumentation in mathematics classrooms.

Dialogue, Argumentation, and Educationis a deliberately provocative volume. Schwarz and Baker call on education researchers to...



I am grateful to Jenn Czocher for providing many helpful comments on an earlier draft of this review.


  1. Czocher, J. A., & Moss, D. L. (2017). Are students’ prior experiences important? Mathematics Teacher, 111(9), 664–660.Google Scholar
  2. D’Ambrosio, U. (1990). The role of mathematics education in building a democratic and just society. For the Learning of Mathematics, 10(3), 20–23.Google Scholar
  3. Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  4. Gal, I. (2002). Adults’ statistical literacy: Meanings, components, responsibilities. International Statistical Review, 70(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. González, G., & Herbst, P. (2013). An oral proof in a geometry class: How linguistic tools can help map the content of a proof. Cognition and Instruction, 31(3), 271–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hanna, G. (1990). Some pedagogical aspects of proof. Interchange, 21(1), 6–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Inglis, M., Mejia-Ramos, J. P., & Simpson, A. (2007). Modelling mathematical argumentation: The importance of qualification. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(1), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lange, M. (2009). Why proofs by mathematical induction are generally not explanatory. Analysis, 69(2), 203–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Larsen, S., & Zandieh, M. (2008). Proofs and refutations in the undergraduate mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(3), 205–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mancosu, P. (2001). Mathematical explanation: Problems and prospects. Topoi, 20(1), 97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rasmussen, C., Wawro, M., & Zandieh, M. (2015). Examining individual and collective level mathematical progress. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 88(2), 259–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Stylianides, G. J., Sandefur, J., & Watson, A. (2016). Conditions for proving by mathematical induction to be explanatory. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 43, 20–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Stylianides, G. J., Stylianides, A. J., & Weber, K. (2017). Research on the teaching and learning of proof: Taking stock and moving forward. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 237–266). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  15. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Zazkis, D., Weber, K., & Mejía-Ramos, J. P. (2016). Bridging the gap between graphical arguments and verbal-symbolic proofs in a real analysis context. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 93(2), 155–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Zhen, B., Weber, K., & Mejia-Ramos, J. P. (2016). Mathematics majors’ perceptions of the admissibility of graphical inferences in proofs. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 2(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of EducationRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations