Ryan C. Smith

Identifying Kinds of Reasoning in Collective Argumentation

We combine Peirce’s rule, case, and result with Toulmin’s data, claim, and warrant to differentiate between deductive, inductive, abductive, and analogical reasoning within collective argumentation. In this theoretical article, we illustrate these kinds of reasoning in episodes of collective argumentation using examples from one teacher’s practice. Examining different kinds of reasoning in collective argumentation can inform how students engage in generating and examining hypotheses using inductive and abductive reasoning and move toward the deductive reasoning required for proof. Mathematics educators can build on their understanding of these kinds of reasoning to support students in reasoning in productive ways.

Prospective and Current Secondary Mathematics Teachers' Criteria for Evaluating Mathematical Cognitive Technologies.

ABSTRACT As technology becomes more ubiquitous in the mathematics classroom, teachers are being asked to incorporate it into their lessons more than ever before. The amount of resources available online is staggering and teachers need to be able to analyse and identify resources that would be most appropriate and effective with their students. This study examines the criteria prospective and current secondary mathematics teachers use and value most when evaluating mathematical cognitive technologies (MCTs). Results indicate all groups of participants developed criteria focused on how well an MCT represents the mathematics, student interaction and engagement with the MCT, and whether the MCT was user-friendly. However, none of their criteria focused on how well an MCT would reflect students’ solution strategies or illuminate their thinking. In addition, there were some differences between the criteria created by participants with and without teaching experience, specifically the types of supports available in an MCT. Implications for mathematics teacher educators are discussed.