How is collaborative argumentation in mathematics education? Systematic literature review

Windi Setiawan; Rooselyna Ekawati; Pradnyo Wijayanti; Agung Lukito; Abadi

doi:10.31893/multirev.2026252

Keywords:

Abstract

This study aims to explore the definition, situations that require collaborative argumentation, characteristics of problem-solving tasks in collaborative argumentation studies, and framework used by researchers to analyze dialogs in collaborative argumentation. The researcher conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) from 2009 to 2024 on the Scopus database using the keywords “collaborative” AND “argumentation.” The SLR method includes planning, implementation, and reporting. The initial search yielded 877 articles. The researcher applied filtering rules such as articles published between 2009 and 2024, articles published in journals, and research related to collaborative argumentation conducted in the field of mathematics education. The researcher identified 8 main articles that were analyzed according to the research objectives. The analysis results align with the research objectives. The researcher identified the definition of collaborative argumentation, situations requiring collaborative argumentation, characteristics of tasks used in collaborative argumentation studies, and frameworks or approaches used to analyze collaborative argumentation in mathematics education research. Collaborative argumentation is a dialog between two or more people when they work together to determine a solution to a problem they are facing. One situation that requires collaborative argumentation involves forming students into several groups so that they can work together to complete the problem-solving tasks given. The tasks used in collaborative argumentation studies are mostly nonroutine tasks that require students to collaborate with their peers. The types of frameworks used by researchers to analyze collaborative argumentation include the Toulmin argument pattern, collaborative creative reasoning, the Toulmin model supplemented with Habernas' rationality construct, the zigzag pathway in geometric reasoning accompanied by consideration of attitude factors in problem solving, teachers' understanding when involved in argumentation activities in the classroom, emotions when students solve problems, mathematical reasoning supplemented with semiotic indicators, and semantic warrant analysis in substantial argumentation activities. The findings of the SLR can provide a strong theoretical and methodological foundation for further research.
References
1. Ayalon, M., Wilkie, K. J., & Eid, K. H. (2022). Relating students’ emotions during argumentative discourse to their learning of real-life functional situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 110(1), 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10121-5
2. Bahari, A. A., Kussin, H. J., Harun, R. N. S. R., Mohamed, M., & Jobar, N. A. (2021). The limitations of conducting collaborative argumentation when teaching argumentative essays in Malaysian secondary schools. Studies in English Language and Education, 8(3), 1111–1122. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v8i3.19287
3. Baroni, P., Toni, F., & Verheij, B. (2020). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games: 25 years later. Argument and Computation, 11(1–2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3233/AAC-200901
4. Carlsen, M. (2018). Upper secondary students’ mathematical reasoning on a sinusoidal function. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 99(3), 277–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-018-9844-1
5. Conner, A. M., Singletary, L. M., Smith, R. C., Wagner, P. A., & Francisco, R. T. (2014). Identifying kinds of reasoning in collective argumentation. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 16(3), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2014.921131
6. Dodd, C., Athauda, R., & Adam, M. (2017). Designing user interfaces for the elderly: A systematic literature review. In Proceedings of the Australasian Conference on Information Systems (p. 61). Hobart, Australia. https://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2017/61
7. Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & Hejmadi, A. (2008). Mother and child emotions during mathematics homework. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(1), 5–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060701818644
8. Erduran, S., Ozdem, Y., & Park, J. Y. (2015). Research trends on argumentation in science education: A journal content analysis from 1998–2014. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(5), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0020-1
9. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
10. Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students’ collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21076
11. Evagorou, M., Papanastasiou, E., & Vrikki, M. (2023). What do we really know about students’ written arguments? Evaluating written argumentation skills. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(4), 615–634. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/13284
12. Gómez-Chacón, I. M., Romero Albaladejo, I. M., & García López, M. M. (2016). Zig-zagging in geometrical reasoning in technological collaborative environments: A mathematical working space-framed study concerning cognition and affect. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 48(6), 909–924. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0755-2
13. Granberg, C., & Olsson, J. (2015). ICT-supported problem solving and collaborative creative reasoning: Exploring linear functions using dynamic mathematics software. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 37, 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2014.11.001
14. Hidayah, M., & Forgasz, H. (2020). A comparison of mathematical tasks types used in Indonesian and Australian textbooks based on geometry contents. Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(3), 385–404. https://doi.org/10.22342/JME.11.3.11754.385-404
15. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Chinn, C. A., Chan, C. K. K., & O’Donnell, A. M. (Eds.). (2013). The international handbook of collaborative learning. Routledge.
16. Kazemi, E., Ghousseini, H., Cordero-Siy, E., Prough, S., McVicar, E., & Resnick, A. F. (2021). Supporting teacher learning about argumentation through adaptive, school-based professional development. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 53(2), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01242-5
17. Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation. Routledge.
18. Krummheuer, G. (1997). Reflexive arguing in elementary school classes: Opportunities for learning. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 229–269). Chicago, IL. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED409109
19. Krummheuer, G. (2000). Cultures: Classroom learning in narrative in primary studies of argumentation. For the Learning of Mathematics, 20(1), 22–32. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40248315
20. Krummheuer, G. (2007). Argumentation and participation in the primary mathematics classroom: Two episodes and related theoretical abductions. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26(1), 60–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2007.02.001
21. Krummheuer, G. (2013). The relationship between diagrammatic argumentation and narrative argumentation in the context of the development of mathematical thinking in the early years. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 84(2), 249–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-013-9471-9
22. Kwon, O. N., Park, J. S., & Park, J. H. (2006). Cultivating divergent thinking in mathematics through an open-ended approach. Asia Pacific Education Review, 7(1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03036784
23. Lame, G., & Guillaume, R. (2019). Systematic literature reviews: An introduction. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED19) (pp. 1633–1642). Delft, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.169
24. Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. John Benjamins Publishing.
25. Lithner, J. (2008). A research framework for creative and imitative reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(3), 255–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-007-9104-2
26. Lutkevich, B. (2020). Definition framework. TechTarget. https://www.techtarget.com
27. O’Donnell, A. M., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Erkens, G. (Eds.). (2011). Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology. Routledge.
28. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2017). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework. OECD Publishing.
29. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-85098-1
30. Sampson, V., Enderle, P., & Grooms, J. (2013). Argumentation in science education. Springer.
31. Sanchez, W. B. (2013). Open-ended questions and the process standards. The Mathematics Teacher, 107(3), 206–211. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteacher.107.3.0206
32. Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455–488. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163292
33. Susanti, R. D., Lukito, A., & Ekawati, R. (2023). Peirce’s semiotic in computational thinking for mathematical problem-solving process. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 23(16), 102–112. https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v23i16.6466
34. Taşdan, B. T., Dede, A. T., & Koyunkaya, M. Y. (2024). Examining pre-service mathematics teachers’ argumentation-supported lesson plans and their noticing during planning. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 55(6), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2022.2054741
35. Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument: Updated edition. Cambridge University Press.
36. Urhan, S., & Zengin, Y. (2024). Investigating university students’ argumentations and proofs using dynamic mathematics software in collaborative learning, debate, and self-reflection stages. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 10(2), 380–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-022-00207-7
37. van Eemeren, F. H. (2018). Argumentation theory: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Springer.
38. Van Ness, C. K., & Maher, C. A. (2019). Analysis of the argumentation of nine-year-olds engaged in discourse about comparing fraction models. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 53, 13–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2018.04.004
39. Walter, J. G., & Barros, T. (2011). Students build mathematical theory: Semantic warrants in argumentation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 78(3), 323–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9326-1
40. Walton, D. (2009). Argumentation theory: A very short introduction. Springer.
41. Willmot, R. (2000). Argumentation: Understanding effective reasoning. International Institute of Directors and Managers (IIDM).
42. Zheng, X.-L., Gu, X.-Y., Lai, W.-H., Tu, Y.-F., Hwang, G.-J., & Wang, F. (2023). Development of the social metacognition inventory for online collaborative argumentation: Construct validity and reliability. Educational Technology Research and Development, 71(3), 949–971. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10220-5
43. Zhu, Y., & Fan, L. (2006). Focus on the representation of problem types in intended curriculum: A comparison of selected mathematics textbooks from Mainland China and the United States. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(4), 609–626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-006-9036-9

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

How to cite

Setiawan, W., Ekawati, R., Wijayanti, P., Lukito, A., & Abadi. (2025). How is collaborative argumentation in mathematics education? Systematic literature review. Multidisciplinary Reviews, 9(5), 2026252. https://doi.org/10.31893/multirev.2026252

[1] Ayalon, M., Wilkie, K. J., & Eid, K. H. (2022). Relating students’ emotions during argumentative discourse to their learning of real-life functional situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 110(1), 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10121-5

[2] Bahari, A. A., Kussin, H. J., Harun, R. N. S. R., Mohamed, M., & Jobar, N. A. (2021). The limitations of conducting collaborative argumentation when teaching argumentative essays in Malaysian secondary schools. Studies in English Language and Education, 8(3), 1111–1122. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v8i3.19287

[3] Baroni, P., Toni, F., & Verheij, B. (2020). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games: 25 years later. Argument and Computation, 11(1–2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3233/AAC-200901

[4] Carlsen, M. (2018). Upper secondary students’ mathematical reasoning on a sinusoidal function. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 99(3), 277–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-018-9844-1

[5] Conner, A. M., Singletary, L. M., Smith, R. C., Wagner, P. A., & Francisco, R. T. (2014). Identifying kinds of reasoning in collective argumentation. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 16(3), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2014.921131

[6] Dodd, C., Athauda, R., & Adam, M. (2017). Designing user interfaces for the elderly: A systematic literature review. In Proceedings of the Australasian Conference on Information Systems (p. 61). Hobart, Australia. https://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2017/61

[7] Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & Hejmadi, A. (2008). Mother and child emotions during mathematics homework. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(1), 5–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060701818644

[8] Erduran, S., Ozdem, Y., & Park, J. Y. (2015). Research trends on argumentation in science education: A journal content analysis from 1998–2014. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(5), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0020-1

[9] Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012

[10] Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students’ collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21076

[11] Evagorou, M., Papanastasiou, E., & Vrikki, M. (2023). What do we really know about students’ written arguments? Evaluating written argumentation skills. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(4), 615–634. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/13284

[12] Gómez-Chacón, I. M., Romero Albaladejo, I. M., & García López, M. M. (2016). Zig-zagging in geometrical reasoning in technological collaborative environments: A mathematical working space-framed study concerning cognition and affect. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 48(6), 909–924. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0755-2

[13] Granberg, C., & Olsson, J. (2015). ICT-supported problem solving and collaborative creative reasoning: Exploring linear functions using dynamic mathematics software. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 37, 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2014.11.001

[14] Hidayah, M., & Forgasz, H. (2020). A comparison of mathematical tasks types used in Indonesian and Australian textbooks based on geometry contents. Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(3), 385–404. https://doi.org/10.22342/JME.11.3.11754.385-404

[15] Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Chinn, C. A., Chan, C. K. K., & O’Donnell, A. M. (Eds.). (2013). The international handbook of collaborative learning. Routledge.

[16] Kazemi, E., Ghousseini, H., Cordero-Siy, E., Prough, S., McVicar, E., & Resnick, A. F. (2021). Supporting teacher learning about argumentation through adaptive, school-based professional development. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 53(2), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01242-5

[17] Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation. Routledge.

[18] Krummheuer, G. (1997). Reflexive arguing in elementary school classes: Opportunities for learning. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 229–269). Chicago, IL. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED409109

[19] Krummheuer, G. (2000). Cultures: Classroom learning in narrative in primary studies of argumentation. For the Learning of Mathematics, 20(1), 22–32. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40248315

[20] Krummheuer, G. (2007). Argumentation and participation in the primary mathematics classroom: Two episodes and related theoretical abductions. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26(1), 60–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2007.02.001

[21] Krummheuer, G. (2013). The relationship between diagrammatic argumentation and narrative argumentation in the context of the development of mathematical thinking in the early years. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 84(2), 249–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-013-9471-9

[22] Kwon, O. N., Park, J. S., & Park, J. H. (2006). Cultivating divergent thinking in mathematics through an open-ended approach. Asia Pacific Education Review, 7(1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03036784

[23] Lame, G., & Guillaume, R. (2019). Systematic literature reviews: An introduction. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED19) (pp. 1633–1642). Delft, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.169

[24] Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. John Benjamins Publishing.

[25] Lithner, J. (2008). A research framework for creative and imitative reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(3), 255–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-007-9104-2

[26] Lutkevich, B. (2020). Definition framework. TechTarget. https://www.techtarget.com

[27] O’Donnell, A. M., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Erkens, G. (Eds.). (2011). Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology. Routledge.

[28] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2017). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework. OECD Publishing.

[29] Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-85098-1

[30] Sampson, V., Enderle, P., & Grooms, J. (2013). Argumentation in science education. Springer.

[31] Sanchez, W. B. (2013). Open-ended questions and the process standards. The Mathematics Teacher, 107(3), 206–211. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteacher.107.3.0206

[32] Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455–488. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163292

[33] Susanti, R. D., Lukito, A., & Ekawati, R. (2023). Peirce’s semiotic in computational thinking for mathematical problem-solving process. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 23(16), 102–112. https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v23i16.6466

[34] Taşdan, B. T., Dede, A. T., & Koyunkaya, M. Y. (2024). Examining pre-service mathematics teachers’ argumentation-supported lesson plans and their noticing during planning. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 55(6), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2022.2054741

[35] Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument: Updated edition. Cambridge University Press.

[36] Urhan, S., & Zengin, Y. (2024). Investigating university students’ argumentations and proofs using dynamic mathematics software in collaborative learning, debate, and self-reflection stages. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 10(2), 380–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-022-00207-7

[37] van Eemeren, F. H. (2018). Argumentation theory: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Springer.

[38] Van Ness, C. K., & Maher, C. A. (2019). Analysis of the argumentation of nine-year-olds engaged in discourse about comparing fraction models. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 53, 13–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2018.04.004

[39] Walter, J. G., & Barros, T. (2011). Students build mathematical theory: Semantic warrants in argumentation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 78(3), 323–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9326-1

[40] Walton, D. (2009). Argumentation theory: A very short introduction. Springer.

[41] Willmot, R. (2000). Argumentation: Understanding effective reasoning. International Institute of Directors and Managers (IIDM).

[42] Zheng, X.-L., Gu, X.-Y., Lai, W.-H., Tu, Y.-F., Hwang, G.-J., & Wang, F. (2023). Development of the social metacognition inventory for online collaborative argumentation: Construct validity and reliability. Educational Technology Research and Development, 71(3), 949–971. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10220-5

[43] Zhu, Y., & Fan, L. (2006). Focus on the representation of problem types in intended curriculum: A comparison of selected mathematics textbooks from Mainland China and the United States. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(4), 609–626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-006-9036-9

Abstract

References

How to cite