From traditional teaching to argumentation-based instruction: A student-centered approach in mathematics education

Abstract

This study examines secondary mathematics teachers’ attitudes toward argumentation-based instruction (ABI) and its enactment in classroom practice within a Bedouin Arab secondary-school context. Grounded in Toulmin's model of argumentation, the study adopts a qualitative case-study design combining classroom observations and semi-structured interviews. Data were collected from five mathematics teachers, including repeated observations of one Grade 10 classroom. The findings reveal a discrepancy between teachers’ positive orientations toward ABI and its classroom enactment. Although participants viewed argumentation as valuable for promoting conceptual understanding, motivation, and student engagement, observed argumentative episodes were relatively infrequent and generally characterized by low-level reasoning structures, primarily claims supported by data or warrants. Argumentation tended to emerge as an incidental component of problem solving rather than as a systematically planned instructional strategy. Interview data identified several constraints, including time pressure, curriculum demands, exam-oriented accountability, and limited confidence in facilitating dialogic discourse. The findings highlight the complex relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their enacted practices, suggesting that positive attitudes toward argumentation do not necessarily translate into sustained dialogic instruction. The study contributes to the literature by integrating structural and dialogic perspectives on argumentation and by providing a context-sensitive account of how argumentation-based pedagogy is implemented within a culturally specific educational setting. In doing so, it advances understanding of the contextual conditions that shape the enactment of student-centered, reasoning-oriented instruction in mathematics education.