Article Sidebar

Download
Statistic
Read Counter : 116

Main Article Content

Abstract

Collective argumentation plays a crucial role in enhancing students' mathematical understanding through discussion. While previous studies have explored collective argumentation and group composition, only a limited number of research has examined the impact of ability-based grouping—both homogeneous and heterogeneous—on collective argumentation in mathematics learning. Based on this, the current research aims to explore collective argumentation in homogeneous and heterogeneous groups of students, supported by scaffolding, in solving mathematically and non-mathematically rich tasks. Using a qualitative approach with a case study design, the present study involved two groups of eighth-grade students, each consisting of six eighth-grade students with high, medium, and low abilities. Data were collected through recorded group discussions, observations, and interviews. After that, the collected data were analyzed using the Toulmin argumentation model. The findings reveal that homogeneous groups of high-ability students engaged more actively in idea exploration and generated dynamic arguments, incorporating key argumentation elements such as claims, data, warrants, rebuttals, and qualifications. In contrast, in heterogeneous groups, high-ability students dominated discussions, while lower-ability students were more passive and relied on scaffolding from teachers or peers. Furthermore, mathematically rich tasks were more effective in fostering in-depth discussions than non-mathematically rich tasks. These findings highlight the importance of strategic student grouping and scaffolding in promoting engagement and meaningful collective argumentation in mathematics learning.

Keywords

collective argumentation heterogeneous group homogeneous group mathematics tasks scaffolding

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Aminah Ekawati, Tatag Yuli Eko Siswono, Agung Lukito

Creative Commons License

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

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

All articles published Open Access will be immediately and permanently free for everyone to read and download. We are continuously working with our author communities to select the best choice of license options, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA).

How to Cite
Ekawati, A., Siswono, T. Y. E., & Lukito, A. (2025). Collective Argumentation through Scaffolding: Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Groups in Solving Mathematics Tasks. Mathematics Education Journal, 19(2), 217–240. https://doi.org/10.22342/jpm.v19i2.pp217-240
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Aaidati, I. F., Subanji, S., Sulandra, I. M., & Permadi, H. (2022). Student argumentation structure in solving statistical problems based on adversity quotient. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 16(2), 121–140. https://doi.org/10.22342/jpm.16.2.16633.121-140
  2. Agoestanto, A., Sukestiyarno, Y. L., Isnarto, & Rochmad. (2020). Analysis of mathematics modeling student ability in algebraic critical thinking and form of the scaffolding. Proceedings of the International Conference on Science and Education and Technology (ISET 2019), 210–216. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200620.041
  3. Alam, M. K. (2021). A systematic qualitative case study: questions, data collection, NVivo analysis and saturation. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 16(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-09-2019-1825
  4. Ayalon, M., Naftaliev, E., Levenson, E. S., & Levy, S. (2021). Prospective and in-service mathematics teachers’ attention to a rich mathematics task while planning its implementation in the classroom. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19(8), 1695–1716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10134-1
  5. Ayalon, M., & Nama, S. (2024). Secondary school mathematics teacher-perceived factors involved in argumentation: an emerging framework. Research in Mathematics Education, 26(1), 193–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2022.2156585
  6. Bayindir, N., Dede, A. T., Aydin, E., & Kocaman, K. (2024). A framework to examine the ways mathematics teachers participate in and support collective argumentation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-024-10522-x
  7. Bikmaz, F. H., Çeleb, Ö., Ata, A., Özer, E., Soyak, Ö., & Reçber, H. (2010). Scaffolding strategies applied by student teachers to teach mathematics. The International Journal of Research in Teacher Education, 1, 25–36. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/90230
  8. Cervantes-Barraza, J. A., Hernandez Moreno, A., & 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
  9. Cetina-Vázquez, M., Cabañas-Sánchez, G., & Sosa-Moguel, L. (2019). Collective mathematical progress in an introductory calculus course during the treatment of the quadratic function. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 7(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.552427
  10. Chowning, J. T. (2022). Science teachers in research labs: Expanding conceptions of social dialogic dimensions of scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(8), 1388–1415. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21760
  11. Conner, A. (2022). Adaptive instruction that supports collective argumentation. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 66, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2022.100969
  12. Conner, A., Singletary, L. M., Smith, R. C., Wagner, P. A., & Francisco, R. T. (2014). Teacher support for collective argumentation: A framework for examining how teachers support students’ engagement in mathematical activities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 86(3), 401–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-014-9532-8
  13. Conner, A., Tabach, M., & Rasmussen, C. (2023). Collectively engaging with others’ reasoning: Building intuition through argumentation in a paradoxical situation. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 9(3), 666–693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-022-00168-x
  14. Dekker, R., & Elshout-Mohr, M. (2004). Teacher interventions aimed at mathematical level raising during collaborative learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56(1), 39–65. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDUC.0000028402.10122.ff
  15. Demiray, E., Işiksal-Bostan, M., & Saygi, E. (2022). Types of global argumentation structures in conjecture-generation activities regarding geometry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20(4), 839–860. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10172-3
  16. Dogruer, S. S., & Akyuz, D. (2020). Mathematical practices of eighth graders about 3d shapes in an argumentation, technology, and design-based classroom environment. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(8), 1485–1505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10028-x
  17. Ekawati, A., Siswono, T. Y. E., & Lukito, A. (2025). Collective argumentation in mathematics education: A bibliometric analysis. Multidiscip. Rev, 8, 2025183. https://doi.org/10.31893/multirev.2025183
  18. Estrella, S., Morales, S., Méndez-Reina, M., Vidal-Szabó, P., & Mondaca-Saavedra, A. (2024). Collective argumentation in elementary school: an experience of reasoning with data in an online open class. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 13(3), 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLLS-12-2023-0180
  19. Fitriati, F., Marlaini, M., & Elizar, E. (2021). Integrating rich task into the mathematics classroom to develop students’ higher order thinking skills: A collaborative action research study in a secondary school. Elementary Education Online, 20(1), 479–494. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2021.01.042
  20. Foster, C. (2018). Developing mathematical fluency: Comparing exercises and rich tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 97(2), 121–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-017-9788-x
  21. Gomez Marchant, C. N., Park, H., Zhuang, Y., Foster, J. K., & Conner, A. M. (2021). Theory to practice: Prospective mathematics teachers’ recontextualizing discourses surrounding collective argumentation. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 24(6), 671–699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-021-09500-9
  22. Henra, K., Budayasa, I. K., Ismail, & Liu, M. (2024). What is the room for guessing in metacognition? Findings in mathematics problem solving based on gender differences. Perspektivy Nauki i Obrazovania, 69(3), 469–482. https://doi.org/10.32744/pse.2024.3.28
  23. Hinton, M. (2021). Evaluating the Language of Argument. In Springer (Vol. 37). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61694-6
  24. Indrawatiningsih, N., Purwanto, P., Rahman As’ari, A., & Sa’dijah, C. (2020). Argument Mapping to Improve Student’s Mathematical Argumentation Skills. TEM Journal, 9(3), 1208–1212. https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM93-48
  25. Iwuanyanwu, P. (2022). What students gain by learning through argumentation. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 2022, 34(1), 97–107. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1363755.pdf
  26. Kosko, K. W., 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
  27. Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The Emergence of Mathematical Meaning: Interaction in Classroom Cultures (pp. 229–269). Erlbaum, Hillsdale. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203053140
  28. Lloyd, G. M., & Murphy, P. K. (2023). Mathematical argumentation in small-group discussions of complex mathematical tasks in elementary teacher education settings. In R. Leikin (Ed.), Mathematical Challenges for All (pp. 169–195). Springer Nature Link. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18868-8_9
  29. Mahharrini, E. P., Anwar, Ansari, B. I., & Yani, B. (2020). In-service teachers’ scaffolding in teaching and learning mathematics. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1460(1), 012039. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1460/1/012039
  30. Mariotti, M. A., Durand-Guerrier, V., & Stylianides, G. J. (2018). Argumentation and proof. Developing Research in Mathematics Education, 75–89. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315113562-7
  31. Matthewes, S. H. (2020). Better together? Heterogeneous effects of tracking on student achievement. He Economic Journal, 131(635), 1269-1307. https://doi.org/10.5157/NEPS:SC3:8.0.1
  32. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Third Edition. In Sage publications. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED565763
  33. Noroozi, O., Kirschner, P. A., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M. (2018). Promoting argumentation competence: Extending from first- to second-order scaffolding through adaptive fading. Educational Psychology Review, 30(1), 153–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9400-z
  34. Peng, H., & Tao, S. (2022). Schema, zone of proximal development, and scaffolding in real-classroom settings and inspired improvements in Chinese middle schools’ classrooms. Frontiers in Educational Research, 5(10). https://doi.org/10.25236/FER.2022.051020
  35. Romero Ariza, M., Quesada Armenteros, A., & Estepa Castro, A. (2024). Promoting critical thinking through mathematics and science teacher education: the case of argumentation and graphs interpretation about climate change. European Journal of Teacher Education, 47(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2021.1961736
  36. Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2015). The influence of group dynamics on collaborative scientific argumentation. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(2), 335–351. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1338a
  37. Sevinc, S., & Lesh, R. (2022). Preservice mathematics teachers’ conceptions of mathematically rich and contextually realistic problems. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 25(6), 667–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-021-09512-5
  38. Shuowen, A., & Zhang, S. (2024). Effects of ability grouping on students’ collaborative problem solving patterns: Evidence from lag sequence analysis and epistemic network analysis. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 51, 101453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101453
  39. Swidan, O. (2022). Meaning making through collective argumentation: The role of students’ argumentative discourse in their exploration of the graphic relationship between a function and its anti-derivative. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications: An International Journal of the IMA, 41(2), 92–109. https://doi.org/10.1093/teamat/hrab034
  40. Tümen-Akyıldız, S., & Ahmed, K. H. (2021). An overview of qualitative research and focus group discussion. International Journal of Academic Research in Education, 7(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.17985/ijare.866762
  41. Van de Pol, J., Mercer, N., & Volman, M. (2019). Scaffolding student understanding in small-group work: Students’ uptake of teacher support in subsequent small-group interaction. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(2), 206–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2018.1522258
  42. Vogel, F. (2016). Fostering university freshmen’s mathematical argumentation skills with collaboration scripts. Proceedings of International Conference of the Learning Sciences, ICLS, 1, 599–606. https://repository.isls.org/bitstream/1/168/1/78.pdf
  43. Wang, J. (2020). Scrutinising the positions of students and teacher engaged in argumentation in a high school physics classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 42(1), 25–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1700315
  44. Xi, J., & Lantolf, J. P. (2021). Scaffolding and the zone of proximal development: A problematic relationship. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 51(1), 25–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12260
  45. Yeo, J. B. W. (2017). Development of a framework to characterise the openness of mathematical tasks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9675-9
  46. Zhuang, Y., & Conner, A. M. (2022). Teachers’ use of rational questioning strategies to promote student participation in collective argumentation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 111(2), 345–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-022-10160-6

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.