Bibliographic Details
| Title: |
Identifying Kinds of Reasoning in Collective Argumentation. |
| Authors: |
Conner, AnnaMarie1, Singletary, Laura M.2, Smith, Ryan C.1, Wagner, Patty Anne1, Francisco, Richard T.1 |
| Source: |
Mathematical Thinking & Learning. 2014, Vol. 16 Issue 3, p181-200. 20p. |
| Subject Terms: |
*Deductive teaching, *Mathematics education, *Reasoning, Debate, Hypothesis |
| Abstract: |
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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|
Copyright of Mathematical Thinking & Learning is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| Database: |
Education Research Complete |
