Arguing for access: Teachers’ perspectives on the use of argumentation in elementary mathematics and its impact on student success
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order for students to become insightful mathematical thinkers, they need opportunities to think deeply about the concepts they are learning and engage in rich mathematical discussions. In an effort to support teaching practices that facilitate student thinking and discourse in mathematics, this study explored teacher perspectives on the use of argumentation in elementary mathematics classrooms, and is part of a broader study on mathematical argumentation. Data for this paper was collected from six elementary teachers, one librarian, and approximately 110 students, and included research meetings, journals, and interviews. Findings suggested that while these teachers had limited experience with mathematical argumentation prior to participating in the study, and were concerned about whether their students would be able to develop mathematical arguments, by the end of the study, they felt positively towards this type of pedagogy. Further, they perceived a positive impact on their students in that more students were able to access and participate in mathematics, and achieve success. They also felt that students’ understanding of mathematics was deepened due to the use of argumentation tasks. This study suggests that mathematical argumentation is both feasible and applicable to elementary grade levels, and can have an impact on student achievement
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".