Mathematical Classroom Argumentation as a Situated Practice: Preservice Teachers’ Interpretations Across Three Educational Contexts

Source abstract

Abstract This study examines how preservice mathematics teachers (PSMTs) interpret mathematical classroom argumentation as a situated practice across three educational contexts: Israel, Türkiye, and Italy. Sixty-four PSMTs analyzed the same written whole-class episode concerning whether a given equation represents a function and completed a structured written report. Their interpretations were analyzed using a framework integrating structural and dialogic aspects of argumentation with cognitive, social, and affective dimensions. The same major interpretation types were identified across all three contexts, with Dialogic-Cognitive interpretations showing similar relative prominence and indicating a shared emphasis on the development and evaluation of mathematical ideas through interaction. At the same time, the relative weight given to the mathematical grounding of arguments, the social organization of participation, and affective conditions of engagement varied across contexts. Qualitative comparisons further showed that the same classroom moments could be interpreted in cognitively, socially, or affectively different ways. These patterns were considered alongside documented professional messages in curriculum and teacher education materials, revealing points of correspondence without implying causal influence. The study illuminates how shared and contextually differentiated understandings of mathematical argumentation may coexist and how particular features of this multidimensional practice become salient within different educational and professional contexts.