Teaching strategies to foster mathematical argumentation: a systematic review (2019–2025)

Abstract

Mathematical argumentation is increasingly recognized as a fundamental competency in mathematics education, yet no comprehensive synthesis of the instructional strategies employed to teach it has been developed to date. This systematic review aims to identify and synthesize the instructional strategies used in the teaching of mathematical argumentation at primary, secondary, and tertiary education levels, addressing the research question of what didactic strategies are used for this purpose. The review was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. A systematic search was performed in Scopus and supplemented by Google Scholar, covering the period from 2019 to 2025. After screening 138 records, 12 studies meeting the inclusion criteria were selected; categories were identified inductively through collaborative analysis carried out by both authors. Four main categories of instructional strategies emerged: technology-mediated approaches, including GeoGebra and Scratch; dialogic and debate-oriented models, such as DAIM, ACODESA, and peer feedback; historical and contextual approaches integrating the history of mathematics; and gamification and STEAM-based strategies. The most recurrent theoretical frameworks were the Toulmin model, socio-mathematical norms, and sociocultural perspectives. The evidence suggests improvements in argument quality and critical reasoning across the reviewed studies, and several interventions support a progression from empirically based arguments toward more deductive forms of reasoning, consistent with Duval’s distinction between argumentation and proof and Boero et al.’s construct of cognitive unity. Limitations include language bias, potential publication bias, and the absence of independent coding. The review emphasizes the need for longitudinal and cross-cultural research and offers insights for teacher education and curriculum design.