Levels of Mathematical Argumentation: An Analysis of Junior High School Students’ Reasoning in Number Pattern Tasks

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58421/gehu.v5i2.1175

Authors

  • Marlina Marlina Jambi University https://orcid.org/0009-0006-8964-5623
  • Rohati Rohati Jambi University
  • Sri Winarni Jambi University
  • Ade Kumalasari Jambi University

Keywords:

Analysis, Argumentation, reasoning, number pattern

Abstract

Mathematical argumentation is important for developing students’ reasoning abilities. This study aims to analyze junior high school students’ written and oral argumentation abilities when solving reasoning tasks. This research employed a descriptive qualitative approach, involving 31 ninth-grade students from SMP Negeri 7 Muaro Jambi. The study was conducted in the odd semester of the 2024/2025 academic year. The research instruments consisted of a mathematical reasoning test, interview protocols, and documentation. The mathematical reasoning test included three questions. The results of the tests and interviews were analyzed using the main components of Toulmin’s argumentation model, which consist of claims, data, warrants, backing, qualifiers, and rebuttals. Based on the test and interview results, students’ argumentation abilities were categorized into five levels, from Level 1 to Level 5. The findings show that 31 students (100%) reached Level 1, 15 (48.38%) reached Level 2, and 9 (29.03%) reached Level 3. No students reached Level 4 or Level 5. These findings indicate that students can construct claims, data, and warrants when solving mathematical reasoning tasks. However, students still need to be trained to develop backing, qualifiers, and rebuttals in order to complete the argumentation process appropriately in both written and oral forms.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

A. Mukuka, S. Balimuttajjo, and V. Mutarutinya, “Teacher Efforts Towards the Development of Students’ Mathematical Reasoning Skills,” Heliyon, vol. 9, no. 4, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14789.

O. E. Onoshakpokaiye, “an Overview of Reasoning Ability in Mathematics and Mathematics Achievement of Students in Tertiary Institution,” IJIET (International Journal of Indonesian Education and Teaching), vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 309–318, 2023, doi: 10.24071/ijiet.v7i2.5988.

I. Dana Wahyudi and Walid, “Mathematical Reasoning Ability Of Students Based On Learning Style Using Missouri Mathematics Project Learning Model,” Unnes Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 206–210, 2020, doi: 10.15294/ujme.v9i3.44538.

R. Rohati, Y. S. Kusumah, and K. Kusnandi, “Exploring Students’ Mathematical Reasoning Behavior in Junior High Schools: A Grounded Theory,” Educ. Sci. (Basel)., vol. 13, no. 3, p. 252, 2023, doi: 10.3390/educsci13030252.

E. Golla and A. Reyes, “Pisa 2022 Mathematics Framework,” no. November 2018, 2022.

B. Nergård, “Preschool Children’s Mathematical Arguments in Play-Based Activities,” Mathematics Education Research Journal, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 193–216, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s13394-021-00395-6.

Rohati, Y. S. Kusumah, K. Kusnandi, and M. Marlina, “How Teachers Encourage Students’ Mathematical Reasoning during the Covid-19 Pandemic?,” Jurnal Pendidikan Indonesia, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 715–726, 2022, doi: https://ejournal.undiksha.ac.id/index.php/JPI/article/view/52756.

P. J. Lin, “the Development of Students’ Mathematical Argumentation in a Primary Classroom,” Educacao and Realidade, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 1171–1192, 2018, doi: 10.1590/2175-623676887.

V. Durand-Guerrier, P. Boero, N. Douek, S. S. Epp, and D. Tanguay, Examining the Role of Logic in Teaching Proof, vol. 15. 2012. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-2129-6_16.

W. D. Butler, D. Corcoran, T. Farrell, S. Nicmhuirí, M. O. Connor, and J. Travers, “Mathematics in Early Childhood and Primary Education (3-8 years): Executive Summaries,” no. 18, p. 31, 2014.

C. Björklund, M. Van Den Heuvel-Panhuizen, and A. Kullberg, “Research on Early Childhood Mathematics Teaching and Learning,” ZDM - Mathematics Education, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 607–619, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11858-020-01177-3.

D. Muhtadi, Sukirwan, R. Hermanto, Warsito, and A. Sunendar, “How do Students Promote Mathematical Argumentation Through Guide-Redirecting Warrant Construction?” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 1613, no. 1, 2020, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1613/1/012031.

K. Kruse, “Can Argumentative Writing Improve Math Knowledge for Elementary Students with a Mathematics Learning Disability?: a Single-Case Classroom Intervention Investigation 1”.

K. W. Kosko, “View of Making Students’ Mathematical Arguments Explicit.pdf.”

K. Wilkie and M. Ayalon, “Learning to Argue While Arguing to Learn: Students’ Emotional Experiences During Argumentation for Graphing Real-Life Functions,” Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 19, no. 8, 2023, doi: 10.29333/ejmste/13435.

T. G. Campbell, S. King, and J. Zelkowski, “Comparing Middle Grade Students’ Oral and Written Arguments,” Research in Mathematics Education, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 21–38, 2021, doi: 10.1080/14794802.2020.1722960.

K. N. Bieda, D. A. Bowers, and V. A. B. Küchle, “The Genre(s) of Argumentation in School Mathematics,” Michigan Reading Journal, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 41–52, 2019.

S. P. Yee, J. D. Boyle, Y. Y. (Winnie) Ko, and S. K. Bleiler-Baxter, “Effects of Constructing, Critiquing, and Revising Arguments Within University Classrooms,” Journal of Mathematical Behavior, vol. 49, no. May 2016, pp. 145–162, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.11.009.

A. J. Stylianides, “the Role of Mode of Representation in Students’ Argument Constructions,” CERME 9 - Ninth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, pp. 213–220, 2015.

B. Wilson, “Digital Commons @ University of Nebraska - Lincoln Mathematical Communication through Written and Oral Expression,” 2009.

A. J. Stylianides, “Secondary Students’ Proof Constuctions in Mathematics: The Role of Written Versus Oral Mode of Argument Representation,” Review of Education, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 156–182, 2019.

S. Jablonski and M. Ludwig, “Mathematical Arguments in the Context of Mathematical Giftedness – Analysis of Oral Argumentations with Toulmin to cite this Version : HAL Id : hal-02398107,” HAL open science, pp. 1–10, 2019.

K. H. Hauge and R. Barwell, “Post-Normal Science and Mathematics Education in Uncertain Times: Educating Future Citizens for Extended Peer Communities,” Futures, vol. 91, pp. 25–34, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2016.11.013.

J. Van De Pol, M. Volman, and J. Beishuizen, “Scaffolding in Teacher-Student Interaction: a Decade Of Research,” Educ. Psychol. Rev., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 271–296, 2010, doi: 10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6.

O. T. Kaufmann and A. Ryve, “Teachers’ Framing of Students’ Difficulties In Mathematics Learning In Collegial Discussions,” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, vol. 67, no. 7, pp. 1069–1085, 2023, doi: 10.1080/00313831.2022.2115134.

S. A. Kiuhara, J. R. Levin, M. Tolbert, B. V. O’Keeffe, R. E. O’Neill, and J. M. Jameson, “Teaching Argument Writing in Math Class: Challenges And Solutions to Improve the Performance of 4th And 5th Graders with Disabilities,” Read. Writ., no. 0123456789, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s11145-023-10459-7.

S. Nabila and R. I. I. Putri, “Students’ Mathematical Reasoning Skills on Number Pattern Using PMRI And Collaborative Learning Approach,” Jurnal Elemen, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 290–307, 2022, doi: 10.29408/jel.v8i1.4733.

V. Svoboda and J. Peregrin, “Logically Incorrect Arguments,” Argumentation, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 263–287, 2016, doi: 10.1007/s10503-015-9375-1.

A. Glassner, “Evaluating Arguments In Instruction: Theoretical and Practical Directions,” Think. Skills Creat., vol. 24, pp. 95–103, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2017.02.013.

A. T. Cahyono, S. Susiswo, and T. D. Chandra, “Condition of Students’ Mathematical Reasoning Abilities Based on Their Ability to Argue,” Journal of Disruptive Learning Innovation (JODLI), vol. 2, no. 2, p. 98, 2021, doi: 10.17977/um072v2i22021p98-112.

D. Godden and J. Grey, Reasoning by Grounded Analogy, vol. 199, no. 3–4. Springer Netherlands, 2021. doi: 10.1007/s11229-020-02974-9.

L. Linda and I. Asyura, “Students’ Mathematical Reasoning Ability in Solving Post-Covid-19 PISA Model Math Problems,” Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 140–152, 2021, doi: 10.21831/jrpm.v8i2.44739.

M. Meyer and S. Schnell, “What Counts as a ‘Good’ Argument in School?—How Teachers Grade Students’ Mathematical Arguments,” Educational Studies in Mathematics, vol. 105, no. 1, pp. 35–51, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10649-020-09974-z.

S. I. Klock, “Arguments and Group Discussions: Middle-School Students’ Initial Work with Mathematical Arguments Initial Work with Mathematical Arguments,” Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol., 2024, doi: 10.1080/0020739X.2024.2328347.

C. Rumsey and C. W. Langrall, “Promoting Mathematical Argumentation,” Teach. Child. Math., vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 412–419, 2016.

F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, E. C. W. Krabbe, A. F. Snoeck Henkemans, B. Verheij, and J. H. M. Wagemans, Toulmin’s Model of Argumentation. 2014. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5_4.

M. Ayalon and R. Even, “Factors Shaping Students’ Opportunities To Engage In Argumentative Activity,” no. September 2014, pp. 575–601, 2016.

J. T. Shemwell, K. R. Gwarjanski, D. K. Capps, S. Avargil, and J. L. Meyer, “Supporting Teachers to Attend to Generalisation in Science Classroom Argumentation,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 599–628, 2015, doi: 10.1080/09500693.2014.1000428.

J. Joanna, “the Strategies of Using a Special Kind of Number Patterns in Different Stages of Education,” Educational Research and Reviews, vol. 12, no. 12, pp. 643–652, 2017, doi: 10.5897/err2017.3244.

C. Dahlman, “Unacceptable Generalizations in Arguments on Legal Evidence,” argumentation, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 83–99, 2017, doi: 10.1007/s10503-016-9399-1.

F. Zenker, C. Dahlman, S. Sikström, L. Wahlberg, and F. Sarwar, “Generalization in Legal Argumentation,” J. Forensic Psychol. Res. Pract., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 80–99, 2020, doi: 10.1080/24732850.2019.1689782.

D. Hitchcock, “Good Reasoning on the Toulmin Model,” Argumentation, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 373–391, 2005, doi: 10.1007/s10503-005-4422-y.

S. Erduran, “Toulmin’s Argument Pattern as a ‘Horizon of Possibilities’ in the Study of Argumentation in Science Education,” Cult. Stud. Sci. Educ., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 1091–1099, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s11422-017-9847-8.

E. Erdem and R. Gurbuz, “an Analysis of Seventh-Grade Students’ Mathematical Reasoning.,” Cukurova University Faculty of Education, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 123–142, 2015, doi: 10.14812/cufej.2015.007.

V. M. Cabello, P. M. Moreira, and P. G. Morales, “Elementary Students’ Reasoning in Drawn Explanations Based on a Scientific Theory,” educ. Sci. (Basel)., vol. 11, no. 10, 2021, doi: 10.3390/educsci11100581.

M. Evagorou, E. Papanastasiou, and M. Vrikki, “What do We Really Know About Students’ Written Arguments? Evaluating Written Argumentation Skills,” European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 615–634, 2023, doi: 10.30935/scimath/13284.

B. K. Wardhani, Lady Agustina, and C. K. Galatea, “Analisis Kemampuan Argumentasi Siswa dalam Menyelesaikan Soal Numerasi Berdasarkan Teori Toulmin (Level 1 dan Level 2),” MATHEdunesa, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 166–175, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.26740/mathedunesa.v12n1.p166-175.

A. R. Hakim, W. Widodo, and T. Sunarti, “Profile of Toulmin’s Scientific Arguments Students and Technological Utilities in Global Warming Topic,” JPPS (Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Sains), vol. 12, no. 1, 2022, doi: 10.26740/jpps.v12n1.p85-99.

L. B. Tristanti, A. Sutawidjaja, A. R. As’ari, and M. Muskar, “The Construction of Deductive Warrant Derived from Inductive Warrant in Preservice-Teacher Mathematical Argumentations.,” Educational Research and Reviews, vol. 11, no. 17, pp. 1696–1708, 2016.

V. Aledya, “Kemampuan Pemahaman Konsep Matematika pada Siswa,” Kemampuan Pemahaman Konsep Matematika Pada Siswa, vol. 2, no. May, 2019.

H. D. Puspithasari and H. Pujiastuti, “Analysis of Students’ Understanding of Mathematical Concepts in Solving Comparative Problems,” Journal of Medives: Journal of Mathematics Education IKIP Veteran Semarang, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 181, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.31331/medivesveteran.v5i1.1173.

S. Gökçe, A. Aydoğan Yenmez, and T. Çelik, “Argumentation-Based Learning: an Example of Mathematical Questions Through Online Interactions Among Prospective Teachers,” Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, no. 53, 2020, doi: 10.21764/maeuefd.527779.

L. Triananda, E. A. P, N. Andriani, and P. Fisika, Kemampuan Berargumentasi Siswa Menggunakan Model Toulmin Pada Materi Hukum Newton di SMP Negeri 57 Palembang,” “JIFP (Jurnal Ilmu Fisika dan Pembelajarannya), vol. VII, pp. 33–39, http://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/jifp/.

Downloads

Additional Files

Published

2026-03-19

How to Cite

[1]
M. Marlina, R. Rohati, S. Winarni, and A. Kumalasari, “Levels of Mathematical Argumentation: An Analysis of Junior High School Students’ Reasoning in Number Pattern Tasks ”, J.Gen.Educ.Humanit., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 2457–2468, Mar. 2026.

Issue

Vol. 5 No. 2 (2026): April

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of General Education and Humanities

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>