“I know but I can’t explain it”: a starting point for the development of argumentation abilities in prospective primary teacher education

Argumentation is a complex ability both from the cognitive and from the linguistic-communicative point of view and the development of argumentation abilities is a very important part of teaching programs in the Italian school system. Argumentation is also a crucial topic in mathematics education research from kindergarten to university level. This paper considers the topic of argumentation from the perspective of teacher education and presents the first results of a research involving the collaboration between mathematicians and linguists with the common objective of promoting the development of argumentation skills in students attending the university course in Sciences of Primary Education. After introducing the issue of argumentation in language and mathematics education, we recall Toulmin’s model for the analysis of arguments and discuss the specific approaches to argumentation in linguistics and in mathematics education. Then, we present the first data derived from our analysis of prospective primary teachers’ argumentation skills in written and oral presentations. What emerges is that our students tend to describe rather than argue, as testified also by a limited presence of linguistic markers of argumentation; moreover, also when they produce claims, they do not seem aware of the necessity to support their claims with data and warrants. These preliminary data show that both written and oral argumentation abilities need to be developed and trained in the students in Sciences of Primary Education and that Toulmin’s model and its adaptation by Lo Cascio can be an adequate basis for this development.