Abstract:

This paper aims to analyze the structure and quality of prospective mathematics teachers’ (PMTs)’ argumentation when identifying and interpreting critical incidents from their initial field experiences. We use Toulmin’s model and recent elaborations of it to analyze the discussions that took place at the university where PMTs reflected on their recent classroom experiences. Our aim is to identify the structure of the argumentation and characterize the emerging warrants, backings, and rebuttals. Results indicate different argumentation structures and types of warrants, backings, and rebuttals in the process of PMTs’ interpretations of students’ mathematical activity. We discuss these findings from the perspective of noticing to identify shifts at the level of PMTs’ interpretations.

Chapter URL