Journal of Inquiry Based Activities (JIBA) / Araştırma Temelli Etkinlik Dergisi (ATED)

Vol 13, No 1, 1-13, 2023

FIFTH-GRADE STUDENTS’ ARGUMENTATION STRUCTURES IN

THE POOL OF GEOMETRIC SHAPES1
Ceylan Güler2, Gürsel Güler3

ABSTRACT
In this study, it was aimed to examine the argumentation structures of 5th-grade middle school students,
while they were structuring geometric concepts in argumentation-based activities of geometric shapes.
To this end, 7 fifth-grade students studying in a public middle school were included in the study. In the
study, five geometry tasks involving activities based on materials of geometric shapes were carried out.
The geometry tasks were structured based on argumentation, and the argumentation structures of
students in the processes of structuring geometric concepts were analyzed. In the study, the
argumentation structures of source-structure, spiral-structure, and reservoir-structure emerged from the
student discussions and communications. According to these results, teaching activities structured based
on geometric shapes and materials were observed to be effective in revealing students' different
argumentation structures.
Keywords: argumentation structures, quadrangles, middle school students.

GEOMETRİK ŞEKİL DENİZİNDE ÖĞRENCİLERİN

ARGÜMANTASYON YAPILARI
ÖZ
Bu çalışmada, ortaokul 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin argümantasyon temelli geometrik şekil etkinliklerinde
geometri kavramlarını yapılandırırken ortaya çıkan argümantasyon yapılarını incelemek hedeflenmiştir.
Bu amaçla, bir devlet ortaokulunda öğrenim görmekte olan 7 beşinci sınıf öğrencisi çalışmaya dahil
edilmiştir. Çalışmada, geometrik şekil oluşturma materyallerine dayalı etkinlikleri kapsayan beş
geometri görevi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Geometri görevleri argümantasyon temelli olarak yapılandırılmış
ve öğrencilerin geometri kavramlarını yapılandırma süreçlerinde argümantasyon yapıları ortaya
konulmuştur. Çalışmada, öğrencilerin karşılıklı konuşma ve tartışmaları sistematik olarak incelenmiş ve
bu inceleme sonucunda kaynak-yapı, spiral-yapı ve rezervuar-yapı argümantasyon yapıları ortaya
çıkmıştır. Bu sonuçlara göre, geometrik şekil oluşturma materyallerine dayalı olarak yapılandırılan
öğretim etkinliklerinin öğrencilerin farklı argümantasyon yapılarını ortaya çıkarmada etkili olduğu
görülmüştür.
Anahtar kelimeler: argümantasyon yapıları, dörtgenler, ortaokul öğrencileri.

Article information:
Submitted: 12.24.2022
Accepted: 04.28.2023
Online published: 04.30.2023

1
Ethics committee approval was obtained from Yozgat Bozok University Ethics Committee with the document
dated 21 December 2022 and numbered 40/33.
2
Assist Prof., Yozgat Bozok University, Faculty of Education, Department of Elementary Mathematics Education,
[email protected], ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6384-7941
3
Assoc. Prof., Yozgat Bozok University, Faculty of Education, Department of Elementary Mathematics Education,
[email protected], ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1429-1585
JIBA/ATED 2023; 13(1):1-13 C. Güler & G. Güler

INTRODUCTION also quite effective in terms of conceptual

learning (Yackel & Cobb, 1996). Many
With the discovery of the importance of social researchers have found the contribution of the
learning environments in mathematics argumentation process to students'
education, the orientation toward mathematical mathematical knowledge (Kosko et al., 2014;
reasoning and communication activities has Walter & Barros, 2011; Yackel & Cobb, 1996)
increased in teaching environments. Since the and skills (Driver et al., 2000; Heinze & Reiss,
mathematics teaching environment is a social 2007). In this regard, the argumentation process
context, communicative elements appear in the is extremely effective in students' learning
teaching process (Lerman, 2000). In processes and contributes positively to their
mathematics teaching, students share their high-level thinking skills.
opinions in written and verbal forms and
structure an in-depth understanding process by This study aimed to examine the argumentation
evaluating the shared opinions with their own structures of fifth-grade middle school students
reflections (Lampert & Cobb, 2003). In this while forming geometric concepts with
process based on argumentation, mathematical geometric shapes materials. To this end, the
inquiries are realized in the form of reasoning, study aimed to (i) carry out argumentation-
supporting, or refuting each other's opinions in based geometric shapes activities with fifth-
various ways (Hunter & Anthony, 2011). In grade middle school students and (ii) examine
these inquiry processes, students challenge each the argumentation structures that emerged from
other's opinions, make mathematical the students’ discussions while they were
explanations to defend their mathematical structuring geometric concepts. For this
views, and if someone else questions their purpose, argumentation activities were carried
opinions, they strengthen their claims with out and presented in this study. By examining
mathematical data. Accordingly, mathematical the effectiveness of the argumentation activities
discourse, reasoning, and arguments appear as in revealing the argumentation structures of the
parts of mathematics teaching (e.g., National students, it was ensured that exemplary
Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], argumentation activities that middle school
2000, 2014). mathematics teachers could use in teaching
geometry were developed. Thus, activities that
Argumentation is considered as a tool for will make middle school geometry teaching
students' participation in mathematical effective and support students' argumentation
discourse when they "criticize their peers' process will be created and presented to the
reasoning using examples and counter- middle school mathematics teachers.
examples to refute arguments" (NCTM, 2014,
p. 35). The purpose of argumentation is defined Toulmin's Argumentation Model
as statements comprised of rhetorical tools to
convince individuals of the accuracy or Argumentation is a form of mathematical
inaccuracy of a statement (Antonini & discourse (Mason, 1996). Students' production
Martignone, 2011). Arguments are the last of arguments, backing of each other's arguments
statements structured by participants in the or their efforts to refute each other's arguments
argumentation process and eventually accepted using counter-examples, and their criticism of
or refuted by all (Krummheuer, 1995). From their peers' reasoning are indicators of student
these definitions, argumentation is a logically participation in mathematical discourse
linked mathematical discourse process (Mason, (NCTM, 2014). Toulmin's argumentation
1996; Vincent, 2002), and arguments are the model defines such an argumentation process
end product of argumentation. During the (Toulmin, 1958). In this model, Toulmin (1958)
argumentation process, students express their associated the components/elements of an
opinions by directly participating in social argument - claim, data, and warrant - with each
learning, discuss and defend them by presenting other. Moreover, the model has three auxiliary
evidence to convince others (Stein et al., 2008). components: qualifier, backing, and rebuttal.
In the mathematics teaching process, students' Although these auxiliary elements are not the
evaluation of each other's opinions, questioning main components of the argumentation process,
of opinions, and structuring of mathematical they can be present in arguments (Rumsey,
concepts in direct interaction with each other are 2012). The claim/conclusion [C] is the main

2
JIBA/ATED 2023; 13(1):1-13 C. Güler & G. Güler

component that each argument should have. The Student 2: Using my

statement in which the argument provides a knowledge, I completed the
warrant is the claim. The statement that forms triangle into a square and
the basis of the claim is data [D]. To back the calculated the area of the
claim or conclusion of any argument, there must square.
be some facts, information, or other statements Figure 2. Sample Argumentation Process
referring to the data (Yackel, 2002). There
should be data in the argument since a claim During the argumentation carried out, different
without data remains unbacked, and therefore argumentation structures emerge as students
there is no argument (Toulmin, 1958). The make claims, and their justifications and
statements presented to enable applicability are rebuttals are put forward. In Figure 3, the
warrants [W]. Backing [B] is another factual argumentation process that emerged in the
statement that justifies the warrant (Hitchcock sample activity is schematized.
& Verheij, 2005). Moreover, qualifiers [Q] are
required to express the degree of reliability.
Finally, exceptional cases where the claim is
invalid, if any, can be added to the argument as
rebuttal [R]. Toulmin (1958) reveals the
relationship between these components in a
specific order or with a scheme in Figure 1.

Figure 3. Sample Argumentation Process

Argumentation Structures
Figure 1. Toulmin's Argumentation Steps
The components in Toulmin's argumentation
In a sample argumentation activity, the teacher model are described as argumentation steps or
asked the students, “How can you find the area local arguments (Knipping & Reid, 2010).
of this triangle?” Then, the students were asked Many proofs include sub-proofs of a larger
to make claims, justify these claims, and present proof structure. Argumentation steps do not
their data on what they base their claims. In the generally occur within linear chains; since the
classroom discussion process, the students have results of some steps are recycled as data for
the aim of convincing each other and the others, these steps are combined in
teacher. For this reason, an argumentation argumentation streams (AS) (Knipping & Reid,
process is carried out by evaluating each other's 2010). Argumentation streams are
claims and justifications (see Figure 2). interconnected in more complex ways and form
the argumentation structure together. The
AB = BC = 6br argumentation process progresses from the fine
A( ABC ) = ? structure in individual steps toward the structure
of the entire argumentation. According to Reid
and Knipping (2010), these argumentation
Student 1: First I drew the streams do not usually progress linearly, and
triangle on the squared thus, argumentation structures become more
notebook, then I found the area complex and difficult to analyze. Based on this
of the triangle by counting the situation, Knipping (2008) proposed an analysis
squares in the triangle using my method (Global Argumentation Analysis) that
notebook. would make it easier for researchers to analyze
complex argument relations and recommended
further studies to examine argumentation
structures.

3
JIBA/ATED 2023; 13(1):1-13 C. Güler & G. Güler

Four types of argumentation structures, which distinctive characteristics of the structure are as
emerged in the proof processes in mathematics follows: the presence of parallel arguments
classes, were defined: source-structure, spiral defending the same claim, argumentation steps
structure, reservoir-structure, and gathering- with multiple data, and the presence of
structure (Knipping, 2008; Reid & Knipping, refutations (Reid & Knipping, 2010).
2010). These argumentation structures are
presented in Figure 4 and explained in detail. In spiral-structure, parallel arguments reach a
single main argument. In addition to parallel
arguments, there are also arguments (AS-C) that
are disconnected from the structure and do not
impair the spiral structure in general. The major
Source-structure

difference between spiral-structure and source-

structure is that the claim/data is the conclusion
in source-structure while the target is the
conclusion in spiral-structure.

The reservoir-structure defined by Knipping

(2008) includes intermediate claims. These
intermediate claims form the ways of transition
in reaching the main claim. The distinctive
Spiral-structure

characteristic of this structure is that there is

occasional backward and then forward
continuity between the arguments. Making
backward inferences allows this structure to
involve more in-depth discussion. Thus,
arguments are re-evaluated, and additional
explanations are made.
Reservoir-structure

Gathering-structure is the structure in which all

data are not mentioned in the beginning and the
data that emerge during discussions over time
are included. This structure has no parallel
arguments and backward/forward orientation.

METHOD
Gathering-structure

In this study, a case study design, one of the

qualitative research methods, was used. The
case study is a research approach that enables
the in-depth and holistic examination of
individuals, phenomena, and events (Fraenkel
et al., 2012). In the present study, the case study
design was used since it was aimed to examine
the argumentation structures of a group of
students in a holistic way as they engaged in
geometry activities.
Figure 4. Argumentation Structures (Reid & Participants
Knipping, 2010)
The study participants consisted of fifth-grade
In source-structure, different arguments from students attending a public middle school.
different data are presented. Reid and Knipping Seven students were selected among the fifth-
(2010) explained this structure with the grade students and activities were carried out-
metaphor stating that brooks originating from of-classroom. Purposive sampling was used in
different streams merge to form rivers. The this study. Since this study focused on the

4
JIBA/ATED 2023; 13(1):1-13 C. Güler & G. Güler

argumentation process, students who could student's use so that each student could
express their opinions clearly and were active individually structure geometric shapes.
and willing to participate in the discussions
were included in the study to carry out the Learning Objectives
process efficiently. The characteristics of the
study participants are presented in Table 1. It was aimed to help students to structure the
argumentation process regarding the concepts
Table 1. Characteristics of the Participants of polygon and quadrangle using the geometric
Participant Gender Age Grade shapes set in this study. The content was formed
S1 Female 11 5 according to the Ministry of National Education
S2 Male 11 5 (MoNE) curriculum (MoNE, 2018). The topics
S3 Female 12 5 of the activities are polygons and quadrilaterals.
S4 Male 12 5 In this context, the concepts of the trapezoid,
S5 Male 12 5 parallelogram, rectangle, and square were
S6 Male 12 5 discussed. The topic episodes of the geometric
S7 Male 12 5 concepts are given in Appendix 1.

Procedure In the topic episodes where the relevant

concepts were discussed, the students were
The students were supported to structure their requested to create these concepts using
argumentation processes using geometric shape geometric shapes materials. Afterward, the
students were asked to think out loud about the
materials in their development of an
understanding of geometric concepts. To this properties of the structured shapes and discuss
how they created the shapes. In this process, the
end, a geometric shapes set was used. The
students were encouraged to evaluate each
geometric shapes set helped students create
other's opinions. The image of a teaching
their 2D shapes and thus activate their
creativity. The parts in the set (Figure 5) and activity example from the study is presented in
their properties are presented below. Photograph 1.

Photograph 1. Image of the Activity Setting

Figure 5. Geometric Shapes Materials
The researcher guided the students so that they
Set Content: could produce productive discourses and make
inquiries during the implementation. To enable
• 16 orange connectors (10 holes)
the students to justify their claims in their
• 18 red connectors (8 holes)
discourses, they were asked questions such as
• 16 long purple sticks "Why did you say that? What makes you say
• 24 turquoise medium sticks that?" In the classroom discourses structured in
• 20 small green sticks this way, focus group interviews were held with
• 20 blue curved sticks seven students. Accordingly, the argumentation
processes structured by the students were
The set consisted of 80 sticks and 34 connectors reached. Argumentation processes were
of different lengths. The students could create conducted for about 20-40 minutes for each
various 2D geometric concepts using these topic episode.
materials. Orange-colored connectors had holes
with gaps of 450, and red connectors had holes Data Analysis
with gaps of 600. Hence, the set content was
suitable for forming shapes with different angle In the study, a three-step process was followed
values. In the study, four sets were used for each in structuring students' arguments with

5
JIBA/ATED 2023; 13(1):1-13 C. Güler & G. Güler

geometric shapes materials. In the first step, the concepts are examined, it is seen that the
students' process of creating geometric concepts structures differed according to tasks. Findings
and reasoning was divided into sections. Thus, related to each structure observed are presented
the general topics that emerged in classroom below.
discourses were determined, and the order of
geometric concepts was structured. Revealing Source-Structure
the different sections of the process allowed
making the analysis of arguments in these In the study, the source-structure argumentation
sections more accessible. After the stream and structures of students were observed in Task-1,
order of the topics were revealed, the Task-2, and Task-4. In this subsection, the
construction and analysis of arguments started. activity process performed in Task-1 and Task-
After arguments were constructed, the 2 and the sample argumentation structure that
argumentation structures of the participants emerged in Task-2 are presented.
were created using the argumentation structures
proposed by Knipping (2008) and Reid and Task-1: Trapezoid
Knipping (2010). The analysis of the obtained
data in line with the previously determined Firstly, it was aimed to reveal students'
themes is defined as descriptive analysis preliminary knowledge about regular polygons.
(Merriam, 2009). For this purpose, a multi-stage For this purpose, cards with different geometric
process was followed in the descriptive analysis shapes were distributed to the students (Figure
carried out in the study. For data analysis, first, 6) and they were asked which ones were
the data in five geometry tasks were polygons, regular polygons, and trapezoids:
independently read and coded by the S2: When we were describing triangles, we
researchers. After the coding process done by used to say that the sides should be straight,
the researchers separately, the researchers so we cannot call the shapes curvature
presented the codes they created to each other polygons.
and discussed them. They mutually explained Researcher (R): So, what can we call the
with which label and the reason the coding was curved shapes?
made. As a result of the code evaluations made S4: They are also shapes, but we cannot say
jointly by the researchers, a consensus was polygons, regular polygons.
reached, and the data analysis was completed.

FINDINGS

In this section, the argumentation structures that

emerged from the students’ discussions during
the geometry activities will be presented. The
students’ argumentation structures throughout
the five tasks are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Distribution of Argumentation Figure 6. Geometric Shapes Card

Structures in Geometry Tasks
Argumentation structures When the explanations of the students about the
Task-1 2 Source-structure concept of polygons were examined, it was seen
1 Spiral-structure that they have the understanding that they
Task-2 1 Source-structure should not be curved and that shapes containing
3 Spiral-structure this feature are not polygons. After revealing the
Task-3 2 Spiral-structure students' prior knowledge of polygon concepts,
Task-4 2 Source-structure the concept of a "regular polygon" was
1 Spiral-structure questioned:
Task-5 1 Reservoir-structure R: What properties must a shape have for it
2 Source-structure to be smooth?
S4: Its sides must be equal.
When the students' argumentation structures S1: Angles may need to be equal. But I am
that emerged while structuring geometric not sure.

6
JIBA/ATED 2023; 13(1):1-13 C. Güler & G. Güler

R: Which of the shapes in the picture do you • Has anyone created a parallelogram
think are regular polygons? using these sticks differently?
S6: Regular quadrilaterals; trapezoidal, • Why do you think this is a
rectangular, square, etc. This is how we parallelogram?
learn things.
R: You said the sides and angles must be
equal though. Is this what you're talking
about edges and equality?
S4: So, the sides and angles don't have to be
equal.
The focus was on the concept of the trapezoid,
which the students expressed after the
inferences they made for a polygon to be
regular. The question "What is a trapezoid?"
Photograph 2. Parallelogram Properties Listed
was asked to the students. The students were
asked to create trapezoids using the geometric
By asking the relevant questions, an
shape materials given to them.
argumentation process was structured. It was
aimed to reveal the claim, data, warrant,
Task-2: Parallelogram
qualifier, backing, or rebuttal elements of the
students.
The spiral-structure that emerged in Task-2, in
which the concept of parallelogram was
AS-1. Student comments falling under this
structured, and its properties were addressed, is
argumentation type are presented below.
presented in Figure 7. And then the steps of the
S4: [By forming a parallelogram (D)
argumentation are detailed.
(Photograph 3)] The measurements of all
angles of the parallelogram are equal (T-C)
since their sides are also equal (D/T-C).
S2: [By showing the parallelogram in his
hand] But the sides are not equal (W).
S6: Yes, only the opposite ones are equal
(W). You did the shape wrong; you should
not have used the same sticks (R).

Figure 7. Source-Structure in Task-2

In Task-2, the concept of parallelogram was

presented to the students. Students were asked
to create properties related to parallelograms
using materials (see Photograph 2). Questions
were asked by the researcher about the shapes
created by the students using the material:
• Why do you think the parallelogram is
like this?
Photograph 3. Example of Forming a
• Can you make parallelograms in Parallelogram
different shapes? Why didn't you accept
the other shapes as parallelograms? AS-2. Student comments falling under this
• What properties must a shape have in argumentation are presented below.
order to be a “parallelogram”? How do S6: [By summing the dimensions of the
you say these features? angles at the connection points (D)] If this
• How can you convince your friends that is the case, then the sum of the values of the
a shape is a parallelogram? internal angles exceeds 3600 (W), so their
• Does everyone agree? Anyone have a angles should not be equal (R).
different opinion than your friend?

7
JIBA/ATED 2023; 13(1):1-13 C. Güler & G. Güler

S2: [By adjusting the sum of the dimensions the argumentation structure of the students in
of the angles at the connection points to this task is source-structure.
3600 (D)] All of them must be 900 for the
dimensions of the angles to be equal (W). Spiral-Structure
S1: [By forming a square (D)] If their angles
are equal, it becomes either a rectangle or a Spiral-structure was observed in Task-1, Task-
parallelogram (R). 2, Task-3, and Task-4. The spiral-structure that
S5: But the rectangle and square are also emerged in Task-3, in which the concept of the
parallelograms (B). rectangle was structured, and the area properties
S6: If all the angles of the parallelogram are were discussed, is presented in Figure 8. Then,
equal (W), we will say, “This shape is a the argumentation steps are detailed.
rectangle or a square” (D/T-C).

AS-3. Student comments falling under this

argumentation type are presented below.
S2: [By connecting the adjacent angles at
the tips in the parallelogram (D)
(Photograph 4)] Because they are correct
(W), the sum of these angles is 1800 (T-C).
S4: Yes, it is like an angle on a straight line
(D), they became supplementary angles (B).
Figure 8. Spiral-Structure in Task-3

Task-3: Rectangle

In Task-3, the concept of the rectangle is

discussed. Students were asked to describe the
rectangle and explain its properties (Photograph
5). It was observed that the students formed
their arguments by using the parallelogram,
Photograph 4. Example of Constructing a triangle, and trapezoid properties in the area
Straight Angle calculation of the rectangle. The explanations of
the students and the argumentation structures
AS-4. Student comments falling under this that emerged in this direction are presented
argumentation type are presented below. below.
S2: Then, these two angles (opposite
angles) are also equal (T-C).
S7: [By forming a parallelogram and
determining the degrees of the connection
angles (D)] Yes, they become equal (B).
S7: Because if we use the parallels (D), they
become equal (B).
S3: They should be equal because, by Photograph 5. Comparative List of
calculating the measurements of the Parallelogram and Rectangle Properties
adjacent angles (W), the sum of these two
angles is 1800 (D), then the other angle AS-1. Student comments falling under this
should be equal to it (B). argumentation type are presented below.
S6: If I make the angle between these parts
When the argumentation process was examined, 900, it becomes a rectangle (W) (see
four argument streams about the properties of Photograph 6). We calculate the area by
the angles of the parallelogram were seen. base×height in a parallelogram (D). So, we
When the structure is reviewed, it is observed can calculate the area in the same way in
that it is a funnel shape, and the claim/data and this (C).
target claim are formed based on the data from
different sources. Therefore, it is concluded that

8
JIBA/ATED 2023; 13(1):1-13 C. Güler & G. Güler

in different ways. Accordingly, it was observed

that parallel argument structures were structured
for the same argument at the end of the process,
and therefore the argumentation process had a
spiral-structure.

Photograph 6. Example of Creating a

Rectangle from a Parallelogram

AS-2. Student comments falling under this

argumentation type are presented below.
S3: If I add a diagonal to this shape, it turns
into two triangles (W) (see Photograph 7). Photograph 8. Example of Creating a
a.h
We find the area of a triangle with 2 a (D) Trapezoid
because there are two triangles in a
Reservoir-Structure
rectangle; when we multiply this operation
by 2, the area is found as a. ha . a is the base,
In this study, reservoir-structure only emerged
and ha is the short side of the rectangle (C). in Task-5. The findings are presented below.
S7: Here, we can also create four triangles
with diagonals and find their areas one by Task-5: Association
one (D).
This task aimed to allow students to analyze and
associate the properties of the geometric
concepts discussed. For this purpose, the
researcher asked the following questions to the
students: “Can you explain the relationship
between square-rectangle-parallelogram-
trapezoid using the sticks you have?”
Photograph 7. Finding the Area of a Rectangle AS-1. Student comments falling under this
by Creating a Triangle argumentation type are presented below.
S5: [Creating a rectangle from a trapezoid
AS-3. Student comments falling under this using materials (D)] The rectangle is a
argumentation type are presented below. trapezoid (C), because its opposite sides are
S5: [By creating a trapezoid with materials equal (W).
(D) (see Photograph 8)] When I carry the S2: [Creating a rectangle from a trapezoid
part on the side, a rectangle is also formed using materials (D)] Yes, a rectangle is a
with the trapezoid (W). The area of a trapezoid (C) the sum of the interior angles
trapezoid is found with of both is 3600 (W).
(lowerbase+upper base).h
2
(D). When I moved
the piece here, the long side of the rectangle AS-2. Student comments falling under this
became equal to the bottom of the trapezoid, argumentation type are presented below.
and the short side became equal to the S1: When you make the parallelogram like
height. Therefore,
2.long side.short side
. In this [by making the angles of the
2 parallelogram formed with the materials
other words, the area of the rectangle is 900], it will be trapezoidal (D).
calculated with the 'short side×long side' S3: If we bend it like this [by examining the
(C). square he created with the materials], it
The students asserted the same claim that the becomes a parallelogram (D).
area of the rectangle could be calculated with S5: In the book, it says that a parallelogram
the long side×short side and proved their claim is also a trapezoid (D).

9
JIBA/ATED 2023; 13(1):1-13 C. Güler & G. Güler

During the argumentation process regarding the their understanding of mathematical concepts
properties of the relevant concepts, S5 claimed, (Cervantes-Barraza et al., 2019). Hence, it is
"The diagonal lengths of the parallelogram are concluded that the activities of this study
equal." with respect to the properties of supported the students in the conceptual
diagonals. The students could not be sure about interpretation of geometric concepts and their
the claim asserted by S5 regarding this property, properties.
and they had questions in their minds. In the
continuation of the process, diagonal properties It was observed that different argumentation
were discussed again in examining the rectangle structures emerged during the activities
and square, and the claim asserted by S5 was re- performed in the study. The resulting
visited. After the related claim was handled, argumentation structures are source-structure,
another discussion started. Accordingly, the spiral-structure, and reservoir-structure. When
resulting reservoir-structure is presented in the literature is reviewed, it is reported that
Figure 9. structures are not superior to each other, but
some structures are more complex (Erkek &
Bostan, 2019). The emergence of complex
argumentation structures is possible with the
high-level thinking of students (Knipping,
2008). Thus, when the argumentation structures
of students are reviewed in this study, it is
concluded that high-level thinking skills
emerged. As a result of examining the
Figure 9. Reservoir-Structure in Task-5 argumentation structures in this study, it can be
claimed that the teaching activities created
During the process of Task-5, a retrospective based on geometric shapes materials were
study was carried out once, and discussions effective in supporting students' argumentation
were held about the relevant data source. After processes.
these discussions, a prospective study was
conducted, and the final conclusion was This study has elucidated that the teaching
reached. Therefore, it was revealed that the activities based on geometric shapes materials
process was of a reservoir-structure. were effective in scaffolding students'
argumentation structures. However, elementary
and middle school students are not adequately
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
supported in proving, reasoning, and exploring
mathematical relations throughout the teaching
In the study, it was aimed to examine the
process in school mathematics and therefore do
argumentation structures of fifth-grade students
not have sufficient experience in high-level
in the processes of structuring geometric
thinking (NCTM, 2000). Hence, it is important
concepts using materials. It was observed that
to provide students with effective reasoning
the students used the properties of the concepts
tools. Therefore, it is suggested that similar
they created with geometric shapes materials in
materials can be used in teaching geometry to
structuring their arguments and creating their
fifth-grade students.
data, claims, and warrants. Based on this, it was
concluded that the geometric shapes materials
This study shares geometry activities with
used in this study were effective in various
middle school mathematics teachers to support
components of students' argument steps. In this
their students' argumentation processes. The
way, the students could directly justify the
activities are appropriate for fifth-grade
geometric concepts they created via materials.
students. In the activities carried out based on
Furthermore, it was seen that backing or rebuttal
argumentation, the emergence of different
took place through geometric shapes created
argumentation structures of the students was
with materials. Especially rebuttals increase the
supported. For this reason, it is thought that the
awareness of the validity of arguments and
activities developed in this study can contribute
enable students to identify errors in others'
to teaching geometry content in middle grades.
arguments (Solar & Deulofeu, 2016). Thus,
students are given the opportunity to improve

10
JIBA/ATED 2023; 13(1):1-13 C. Güler & G. Güler

REFERENCES Mathematics Education, 40(3), 427–441.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-008-
Antonini, S., & Martignone, F. (2011). 0095-y
Argumentation in exploring Knipping, C., & Reid, D. (2013). Revealing
mathematical machines: A study on structures of argumentations in
pantographs. In Ubuz, B. (Ed.), classroom proving processes. In A.
Proceedings of the 35th conference of the Aberdein, & I. J. Dove (Eds.), Logic,
International Group for the Psychology epistemology, and the unity of science
of Mathematics Education, 2, (pp. 41- (pp. 119-146). Springer.
48). Turkey. Kosko, K. W., Rougee, A., & Herbst, P. (2014).
Cervantes-Barraza, J. A., & Cabañas-Sánchez, What actions do teachers envision when
G. C. (2018). Argumentos formales y asked to facilitate mathematical
visuales en argumentaciones colectivas argumentation in the classroom?
[Formal and visual arguments in primary Mathematics Education Research
geometry class]. Educación Matemática, Journal, 26(3), 459–476.
30(1), 148-168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-013-
https://doi.org/10.24844/EM3001.06 0116-1
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of
Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation. In P. Cobb & H.
argumentation in classrooms. Science Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergence of
Education, 84, 287–312. mathematical meaning: Interaction in
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098- classroom cultures (pp. 229-269).
237X(200005)84:3<287::AID- Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A Lampert, M., & Cobb, P. (2003).
Erkek, Ö., & Işıksal Bostan, M. (2019). Communication and language. In J.
Prospective middle school mathematics Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter
teachers’ global argumentation (Eds.), A research companion to NCTM’s
structures. International Journal of principles and standards (pp. 237-249).
Science and Mathematics NCTM.
Education, 17(3), 613-633. Lerman, S. (2000). The social turn in
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018- mathematics education research. In J.
9884-0 Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on
Fraenkel, J., Wallen, N., & Hyun, H. (2012). mathematics teaching and learning (pp.
How to design and evaluate research in 19-44). Ablex.
education (8th ed). McGraw-Hill. Lerman, S. (2001). Cultural, discursive
Heinze, A., & Reiss, K. (2007). Reasoning and psychology: A sociocultural approach to
proof in the mathematics classroom. studying the teaching and learning of
Analysis, 27(2-3), 333-357. mathematics. Educational Studies in
https://doi.org/10.1524/anly.2007.27.2- Mathematics, 46(1-3), 87-113.
3.333 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:10140310048
Hitchcock, D., & Verheij, B. (2005). The 32
Toulmin model today: Introduction to the Mason, L. (1996). An analysis of children's
special issue on contemporary work construction of new knowledge through
using Stephen Edelston Toulmin’s layout their use of reasoning and arguing in
of arguments. Argumentation, 19, 255- classroom discussions. Qualitative
258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503- Studies in Education, 9, 411-433.
005-4414-y https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839960090
Hunter, R., & Anthony, G. (2011). Learning to 404
“friendly argue” in a community of Ministry of National Education. (2018).
mathematical inquiry (Teaching and Matematik dersi öğretim programı
learning research initiative report). New (İlkokul ve ortaokul 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve
Zealand Educational Research Council. 8. sınıflar) [Mathematics curriculum:
Knipping, C. (2008). A method for revealing Elementary and middle schools 3, 4, 5, 6,
structures of argumentations in 7 and 8th grades)]. Talim Terbiye Kurul
classroom proving processes. ZDM Başkanlığı.

11
JIBA/ATED 2023; 13(1):1-13 C. Güler & G. Güler

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Vincent, J. (2002). Mechanical linkages,

(2000). Principles and standards for dynamic geometry software, and
school mathematics. NCTM. argumentation: Supporting a classroom
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. culture of mathematical proof
(2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The
mathematical success for all. NCTM. University of Melbourne.
Rumsey, C. (2012). Advancing fourth-grade Walter, J. G., & Barros, T. (2011). Students
students' understanding of arithmetic build mathematical theory: Semantic
properties with instruction that promotes warrants in argumentation. Educational
mathematical argumentation Studies in Mathematics, 78(3), 323-342.
[Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. https://doi.org/10.007/S10649-011-
Illinois State University. 9326-1
Solar, H., & Deulofeu, J. (2016). Condiciones Yackel, E. (2002). What we can learn from
para promover el desarrollo de la analyzing the teacher’s role in collective
competencia de argumentación en el aula argumentation. Journal of Mathematical
de matemáticas [Conditions to promote Behavior, 21(4), 423-440.
the development of argumentation https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-
competence in the mathematics 3123(02)00143-8
classroom]. Bolema, 30(56), 1092-1112. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1980- Sociomathematical norms,
4415v30n56a13 argumentation, and autonomy in
Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & mathematics. Journal for Research in
Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477.
productive mathematical discussions: https://doi.org/10.2307/749877
Five practices for helping teachers move
beyond show and tell. Mathematical
Thinking and Learning, 10, 313- 340.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1098606080222
9675
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument.
Cambridge University Press.

Citation Information

Güler, C., & Güler, G. (2023). Fifth-grade students’ argumentation structures in the pool of geometric
shapes. Journal of Inquiry Based Activities, 13(1), 1-13. https://www.ated.info.tr/ojs-3.2.1-
3/index.php/ated/issue/view/26

12
JIBA/ATED 2023; 13(1):1-13 C. Güler & G. Güler

Appendix-1

The Topic Episodes of the Geometric Concepts

Topic Objectives
Task-1 Trapezoid • Creates a trapezoid, isosceles trapezoid, and perpendicular
trapezoid using geometric shapes materials.
• Defines the shape and properties of the trapezoid by justifying
the conditions of its formation.
• Asserts claims about the properties of the trapezoid.
• Verifies/falsifies the claims.
Task-2 Parallelogram • Creates parallelograms using materials.
• Defines the shape and properties of the parallelogram by
justifying the conditions of its formation.
• Asserts claims about the properties of the parallelogram.
• Verifies/falsifies the claims.
Task-3 Rectangle • Creates rectangles using materials.
• Defines the shape and properties of the rectangle by justifying
the conditions of its formation.
• Makes inferences regarding the definition of the rectangle based
on the definition of the parallelogram.
Task-4 Square • Creates squares using materials.
• Defines the shape and properties of the square by justifying the
conditions of its formation.
• Makes inferences about the definition of the square based on the
definition of the rectangle.
Task-5 Association • Asserts claims about the properties of trapezoid, parallelogram,
rectangle, and square.
• Justifies these inferences using material.
• Verifies/falsifies associations.

13