Conceptions and Consequences of What We Call Argumentation, Justification, and Proof

Abstract

Argumentation, justification, and proof are conceptualized in many ways in extant mathematics education literature. At times, the descriptions of these objects and processes are compatible or complementary; at other times, they are inconsistent and even contradictory. The inconsistencies in definitions and use of the terms argumentation, justification, and proof highlight the need for scholarly conversations addressing these (and other related) constructs. Collaboration is needed to move toward, not one-size-fits-all definitions, but rather a framework that highlights connections among them and exploits ways in which they may be used in tandem to address overarching research questions. Working group leaders aim to facilitate discussions and collaborations among researchers and to advance our collective understanding of argumentation, justification and proof, particularly the relationships among these important mathematical constructs. Working group sessions will provide opportunities to engage with a panel of researchers and other participants who approach these aspects of reasoning from different perspectives, as well as to: hear findings from a recent analysis of these constructs in research; reflect on one’s own work and position it with respect to the field; and contribute to moving the field forward in this area.