Practices of mathematical argumentation among primary school students in Egypt

This study aimed to define argumentation in terms of convincing and proving, and to determine its status among primary school students in Egypt. Mathematical argumentation was described as the output of arguing, involving making claims and providing possible evidence accepted by the community, typically preceding the formal development of proof. A sample of sixty-three primary graders was selected to respond to argumentative tasks presented in decision-making and validation forms. The data were analysed using a scoring rubric with five criteria: claims, decisions, warrants, data, and revisions. The study revealed that most students struggle to identify claims, rely on the naïve empiricism approach to validate them, and employ irrelevant data at the initial level of argumentation. Moreover, revising the decision was found to have a positive impact on other argumentation practices. Potential approaches to enhancing argumentation might regard students’ cognitive level and teachers’ norms for exposing students to proper argumentation practices.