Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education

Declaration of Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest is declared by author(s).

Data sharing statement: Data supporting the findings and conclusions are available upon request from the corresponding author(s).

• Arnaus, R. (1999). La formación del profesorado: Un encuentro comprometido con la complejidad educativa [Teacher training: A meeting committed to educational complexity]. In J. Angulo, J. Barquín, & A. Pérez (Eds.), Desarrollo profesional del docente: Política, investigación y práctica (pp. 599-635). Ediciones Akal.
• Arzarello, F., & Sabena, C. (2011). Semiotic and theoretic control in argumentation and proof activities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 77(2-3), 189-206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9280-3
• Ayalon, M., & Hershkowitz, R. (2018). Mathematics teachers’ attention to potential classroom situations of argumentation. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 49(March 2018), 163-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.11.010
• Baccaglini-Frank, A., & Mariotti, M. (2010). Generating conjectures in dynamic geometry: The maintaining dragging model. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 15(3), 225-253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-010-9169-3
• Balacheff, N. (1999). Is argumentation an obstacle? Invitation to a debate. International Newsletter on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematical Proof, May/June. http://www.lettredelapreuve.org/OldPreuve/Newsletter/990506Theme/990506ThemeUK.html
• Balacheff, N. (2000). Procesos de prueba en los alumnos de matemáticas [Testing processes in mathematics students]. Una Empresa Docente, Universidad de los Andes.
• Ball, D., Lubienski, S., & Mewborn, D. (2001). Research on teaching mathematics: The unsolved problem of teachers’ mathematical knowledge. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (4th ed., pp. 433-456). American Educational Research Association.
• Ball, D., Thames, M., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554
• Bartolini Bussi, M., & Boni, M. (2003). Instruments for semiotic mediation in primary school classrooms. For the Learning of Mathematics, 23(2), 15-22. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40248416
• Bartolini Bussi, M., & Mariotti, M. (2008). Semiotic mediation in the mathematics classroom: Artefacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective. In L. English, M. Bartolini Bussi, G. Jones, R. Lesh, & D. Tirosh (Eds.), Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education (2nd revised edition, pp. 746-783). Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Bartolini Bussi, M., Boero, P., Ferri, F., Garuti, R., & Mariotti, M. (2006). Approaching and developing the culture of geometry theorems in school. In P. Boero (Ed.), Theorems in school: From history, epistemology and cognition to classroom practice (pp. 211-217). Rotterdam, Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087901691_013
• Boero, P., Douek, N., Morselli, F., & Pedemonte, B. (2010). Argumentation and proof: A contribution to theoretical perspectives and their classroom implementation. Proceeding of the 34th Conference of the International Group for Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 179-205). PME.
• Brown, R. (2017). Using collective argumentation to engage students in a primary mathematics classroom. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 29, 183-199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-017-0198-2
• Campbell, T. G., Boyle, J. D., & King, S. (2020). Proof and argumentation in K-12 mathematics: A review of conceptions, content, and support. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 51(5), 754-774. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2019.1626503
• Candela, A. (1991). Argumentación y conocimiento científico escolar [Argumentación y conocimiento científico escolar]. Infancia y aprendizaje, 14(55), 13-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.1991.10822302
• Castro, W. F., Pino-Fan, L., & Velásquez-Echavarría, H. (2018). A proposal to enhance pre-service teachers noticing. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 14(11), em1569. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/92017
• Cervantes-Barraza, J., Cabañas-Sánchez, G., & Reid, D. (2019). Complex Argumentation in elementary school. PNA, 13(4), 221-246. https://doi.org/10.30827/pna.v13i4.8279
• Conner A, Singletary L., Smith R., Wagner, P., & Francisco R. (2014). Identifying kinds of reasoning in collective argumentation. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 16(3), 181-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2014.921131
• Conner, A, Singletary, L., Smith, R., Wagner, P., & Francisco, R. (2014). Teacher support for collective argumentation: A framework for examining how teachers support students’ engagement in mathematical activities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 86, 401-429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-014-9532-8
• Crespo, C., Farfán, R., & Lezama, M. (2010). Argumentaciones y demostraciones: Una visión de la influencia de los escenarios socioculturales [Arguments and demonstrations: A vision of the influence of sociocultural settings]. Revista Latinoamericana de Investigación en Matemática Educativa, 13(3), 283-306.
• De Villiers, M. (1993). El papel y la función de la demostración en matemáticas [The role and function of proof in mathematics]. Epsilon, 26, 15-29.
• Douek, N., & Scali, E. (2000). About argumentation and conceptualization. In T. Nakahara & M. Koyama (Eds.), Proceeding of the 24th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 2, pp. 249-256. Hiroshima, Japan: PME.
• Drijvers, P; Godino, J; Font, V & Trouche, L. (2013). One episode, two lenses A reflective analysis of student learning with computer algebra from instrumental and onto-semiotic perspectives. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(1), 23-49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9416-8
• Durand-Guerrier, V., Boero, P., Douek, N., Epp, S. S., & Tanguay, D. (2011). Argumentation and proof in the mathematics classroom. In G. Hanna, & M. de Villiers (Eds.), Proof and proving in mathematics education (New ICMI Study Series, Vol. 15, pp. 349-367). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2129-6_15
• Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187
• Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H.., & Shouse, A. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K–8. National Academies Press.
• Ebby, C. (2000). Learning to teach mathematics differently: The interaction between coursework and fieldwork for pre-service teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3, 69-97. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009969527157
• Eisenhart, M., Borko, H., Underhill, R., Brown, C., Jones, D., & Agard, P. (1993). Conceptual knowledge falls through the cracks: Complexities of learning to teach mathematics for understanding. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24, 8-40. https://doi.org/10.2307/749384
• English, L. (1997). Promoting a problem posing classroom. Teaching Children Mathematics, 4, 172-180. https://doi.org/10.5951/TCM.4.3.0172
• Erduran, S. (2007). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education (pp. 47-70). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_3
• Erkek, Ö., & Bostan, M. (2019). Prospective middle school mathematics teachers’ global argumentation structures. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17, 613-633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9884-0
• Fielding-Wells, J. (2014). Developing argumentation in mathematics: The role of evidence and context (Unpublished doctoral thesis), Queensland University, Melbourne, Australia.
• Font, V., Nanclares, A., & Iván, J. (2003). Fenómenos relacionados con el uso de metáforas en el discurso del profesor: el caso de las gráficas de funciones [Phenomena related to the use of metaphors in the teacher’s discourse: the case of function graphs]. Revista Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 21(3), 405-418. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.3917
• Franke, M, Webb, N., Chan, A., Ing, M., Freund, D., & Battey, D. (2009). Teacher questioning to elicit students’ mathematical thinking in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(4), 380-392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109339906
• Gabel, M., & Dreyfus, T. (2013). The flow of proof: The example of Euclidean algorithm. In A. Lindmeier, A. Heinze (Ed.), Proceedings of the 37th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 2, pp. 321-328). PME.
• Garcia‐Mila, M., Gilabert, S., Erduran, S., & Felton, M. (2013). The effect of argumentative task goal on the quality of argumentative discourse. Science Education, 97(4), 497-523. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21057
• Godino, J., & Batanero, C. (1994). Significado institucional y personal de los objetos matemáticos [Institutional and personal meaning of mathematical objects]. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 14(3), 325-355.
• Godino, J., Batanero, C., & Font, V. (2007). The onto-semiotic approach to research in mathematics education. ZDM. The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 39(1), 127-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-006-0004-1
• Goizueta, M., & Planas, N. (2013a). El papel del contexto en la identificación de argumentaciones matemáticas por un grupo de profesores [The role of context in the identification of mathematical arguments by a group of teachers]. PNA, 7(4), 155-170.
• Goizueta, M., & Planas, N. (2013b). Temas emergentes del análisis de interpretaciones del profesorado sobre la argumentación en clase de matemáticas [Emerging themes from the analysis of teachers’ interpretations of argumentation in mathematics class]. Enseñanza de las Ciencias: Revista de Investigación y Experiencias Didácticas, 31(1), 61-78. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ec/v31n1.835
• Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. Teachers College Press.
• Habermas, J. (1999). Teoría de la acción comunicativa I. Racionalidad de la acción y racionalización social [Theory of communicative action I. Rationality of action and social rationalization]. Taurus Ediciones.
• Harada, E. (2009). Algunas aclaraciones sobre el “Modelo” Argumentativo de Toulmin [Some clarifications about Toulmin’s argumentative “Model”]. ContactoS, 73, 45-56.
• Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (1998). Students’ proof schemes: Results from exploratory studies. In E. Dubinsky, A. Schoenfeld, J. Kaput, F. Hitt, (Eds.), Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education VII (pp. 234-283). American Mathematical Society. https://doi.org/10.1090/cbmath/007/07
• Hill, H., Ball, D., & Schlling, S. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 372-400.
• Hoyles, C., & Küchermann, D. (2002). Students’ understandings of logical implication. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 51, 193-223. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023629608614
• Jiménez-Aleixandre, M, & Pereiro Muñoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171-1190. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210134857
• Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education (Vol. 35, pp. 3-27). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_1
• Johnson, R. (2000). Manifest rationality. A pragmatic theory of argument. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc
• Jørgensen, C. (2007). The relevance of intention in argument evaluation. Argumentation, 21, 165-174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9044-0
• Kazemi, E., Ghousseini, H., Cordero-Siy, E., Prough, S., McVicar, E., & Resnick, A. F. (2021). Supporting teacher learning about argumentation through adaptive, school-based professional development. ZDM Mathematics Education, 53, 435-448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01242-5
• Knipping, C., & Reid, D. (2015). Reconstructing argumentation structures: A perspective on proving processes in secondary mathematics classroom interactions. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education. Advances in mathematics education. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9181-6_4
• Lakatos, I. (1978). Pruebas y Refutaciones: La lógica del descubrimiento matemático [Proofs and Refutations: The Logic of Mathematical Discovery]. Editorial Alianza.
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenges to western thought. Basic Books.
• Lakoff, G., & Nuñez, R. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. Basic Books.
• LeCompte, M., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed.). Academic Press.
• Makar, K., Bakker, A., & Ben-Zvi, D. (2015). Scaffolding norms of argumentation-based inquiry in a primary mathematics classroom. ZDM, 47(7), 1107-1120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0732-1
• Manghi, D. (2010). Recursos semióticos del profesor de matemáticas: Funciones complementarias del habla y los gestos para la alfabetización científica escolar [Semiotic Resources of the Mathematics Teacher: Complementary Functions of Speech and Gestures for School Scientific Literacy]. Estudios Pedagógicos, 36(2), 99-115. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-07052010000200006
• McClain, K. (2009). When is an argument just an argument: The refinement of mathematical argumentation. In D. Stylianou, M. Blanton, & E. Knuth (Eds.), Teaching and learning proof across the grades: A K-16 perspective (pp. 222-234). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203882009-13
• McNeill, K., & Pimentel, D. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203-229. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20364
• Mendonça, P., & Justi, R. (2013). The relationships between modelling and argumentation from the perspective of the model of modelling diagram. International Journal of Science Education, 35(14), 2007-2034. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.811615
• Mercer, N. (2009). Developing argumentation: Lessons learned in the primary school. In N. Muller Mirza, & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98125-3_7
• Metaxas, N., Potari, D., & Zachariades, T. (2016). Analysis of a teacher’s pedagogical arguments using Toulmin’s model and argumentation schemes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 93, 383-397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9701-z
• Ministerio de Educación Nacional de Colombia MEN (1998). Lineamientos curriculares para matemáticas [Curriculum guidelines for mathematics]. Editorial Magisterio.
• Miyakawa, T. (2017). Comparative analysis on the nature of proof to be taught in geometry: the cases of French and Japanese lower secondary schools. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 94, 37-54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9711-x
• Molina, O., Font, V., & Pino-Fan, L. (2019). Estructura dinámica de argumentos analógicos, abductivos y deductivos: un curso de geometría del espacio como contexto de reflexión [Dynamic structure of analogical, abductive and deductive arguments: a course in geometry of space as a context for reflection]. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 37(1), 93-116. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.2484
• Muller, N., Perret-Clermont, A., Tartas, V., & Iannaccone, A. (2009). Psychosocial processes in argumentation. In N. Muller, & A. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 67-90). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98125-3_3
• Nardi, E., Biza, I., & Zachariades, T. (2012). ‘Warrant’ revisited: Integrating mathematics teachers’ pedagogical and epistemological considerations into Toulmin’s model for argumentation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(2), 157-173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9345-y
• Nielsen, J. (2011). Dialectical features of students’ argumentation: A critical review of argumentation studies in science education. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 371-393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9266-x
• Núñez, R. (2000). Mathematical idea analysis: What embodied cognitive science can say about the human nature of mathematics. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 3-22). PME.
• Núñez, R., & Lakoff, G. (1998). What did Weierstrass really define? The cognitive structure of natural and epsilon-delta continuity. Mathematical Cognition, 4(2), 85-101. https://doi.org/10.1080/135467998387343
• Pedemonte, B. (2007). How can the relationship between argumentation and proof be analyzed? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66, 23-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-9057-x
• Perelman, C. (1997). El imperio retórico: retórica y argumentación [The rhetorical empire: rhetoric and argumentation]. Grupo Editorial Norma.
• Perelman, C. (2007). Lógica formal y lógica informal [Formal logic and informal logic]. Praxis Filosófica, 25, 139-144.
• Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (2006). Tratado de la argumentación: La nueva retórica [Treatise on argumentation: The new rhetoric]. Editorial Gredos.
• Pino-Fan, L., & Godino, J. (2015). Perspectiva ampliada del conocimiento didáctico-matemático del profesor [Extended perspective of the teacher’s didactic-mathematical knowledge]. PARADIGMA, 36(1), 87-109.
• Pino-Fan, L., Assis, A., & Castro, W. (2015). Towards a methodology for the characterization of teachers’ didactic-mathematical knowledge. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(6), 1429-1456. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1403a
• Pino-Fan, L., Assis, A., & Godino, J. (2015). Análisis del proceso de acoplamiento entre las facetas epistémica y cognitiva del conocimiento matemático en el contexto de una tarea exploratorio-investigativa sobre patrones [Analysis of the coupling process between the epistemic and cognitive facets of mathematical knowledge in the context of an exploratory-investigative task on patterns]. Educación Matemática, 27(1), 37-64. https://doi.org/10.24844/EM
• Pino-Fan, L., Godino, J., & Font, V. (2011). Faceta epistémica del conocimiento didáctico-matemático sobre la derivada [Epistemic facet of didactic-mathematical knowledge about the derivative]. Educação Matemática Pesquisa, 13(1), 141-178.
• Pino-Fan, L., Godino, J., & Font, V. (2016). Assessing key epistemic features of didactic-mathematical knowledge of prospective teachers: the case of the derivative. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 21, 63-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-016-9349-8
• Pino-Fan, L., Godino, J., Font, V., & Castro, W. (2013). Prospective teacher’s specialized content knowledge on derivative. In B. Ubuz, Ç. Haser, & M. Mariotti (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 3195–3205). CERME.
• Reed, C., & Long, D. (1997). Multiple subarguments in logic, argumentation, rhetoric and text generation. In D. M. Gabbay, et al. (Eds.), Qualitative and Quantitative Reasoning (pp. 496-510). Springer Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0035644
• Reid, D., & Zack, V. (2011). Aspects of teaching proving in upper elementary school. In D. Stylianou, M. Blanton, & E. Knuth (Eds.), Teaching and Learning Proof across the Grades: a K-16 perspective (pp. 133-145). Routledge; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203882009-8
• Reid, D., Knipping, C., & Crosby M. (2011). Refutations and the logic of practice. PNA, 6(1), 1-10.
• Reiss, K., & Renkl, A. (2002). Learning to prove: The idea of heuristic examples. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, ZDM International Journal of Mathematics Education, 34(1), 29-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02655690
• Rowland, T., Huckstep, P., & Thwaites, A. (2005). Elementary teachers’ mathematics subject knowledge: The knowledge quartet and the case of Naomi. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8(3), 255-281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-005-0853-5
• Rumsey, C., Guarino, J., Gildea, R., Cho, C, & Lockhart, B. (2019). Tools to support K–2 students in mathematical argumentation. Teaching Children Mathematics, 25(4), 208-217. https://doi.org/10.5951/teacchilmath.25.4.0208
• Sampson, V., Enderle, P., Grooms, J., & Witte, S. (2013). Writing to learning to write during the school science laboratory: Helping middle and high school student develop argumentative writing skills as they learn core ideas. Science Education, 97(5), 643-670. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21069
• Schoenfeld, A., & Kilpatrick, J. (2008). Towards a theory of proficiency in teaching mathematics. In D. Tirosh, & T. L. Wood (Eds.), Tools and processes in mathematics teacher education (pp. 321-354) Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087905460_016
• Shinno, Y., Miyakawa, T., Iwasaki, H., Kunimune, S., Mizoguchi, T., Ishii, T., & Abe, Y. (2018). Challenges in curriculum development for mathematical proof in secondary school: Cultural dimensions to be considered. For the Learning of Mathematics, 38(1), 26-30.
• Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
• Simpson, A. (2015). The anatomy of a mathematical proof: Implications for analyses with Toulmin’s scheme. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 90(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-015-9616-0
• Soysal, Y. (2015). A critical review: Connecting nature of science and argumentation. Science Education International, 26(4), 501-521.
• Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
• Tristanti, L., Sutawidjaja, A., As’ari, A., & Muksar, M. (2015). Modelling student mathematical argumentation with structural-intuitive and deductive warrant to solve mathematics problem. In Proceeding of ICERD (pp. 130-139).
• Turiano, F., & Boero, P. (2019). Beyond direct proof in the approach to the culture of theorems: a case study on 10-th grade students’ difficulties and potential. In Eleventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (No. 37). Freudenthal Group; Freudenthal Institute; ERM
• Van Dormolen, J. (1991). Metaphors mediating the teaching and understanding of mathematics. In J. Bishop, & S. Melling Olsen (Eds.), Mathematical knowledge: Its growth through teaching (pp. 89-106). Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2195-0_5
• Van Eemeren, F. H., Houtlosser, P., & Henkemans, A. (2007). Argumentative indicators in discourse: A pragma-dialectical study (Vol. 12). Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6244-5
• Van Eemeren, F., Grootendorst, R., & Henkemans, A (2006). Argumentación: análisis, evaluación y presentación [Argumentation: analysis, evaluation and presentation]. Biblos.
• Yackel, E., & Hanna, G. (2003). Reasoning and proof. In J. Kilpatrick, G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 22-44). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

APA

Castro, W. F., Durango-Urrego, J. H., & Pino-Fan, L. R. (2021). Preservice Teachers’ Argumentation and Some Relationships to Didactic-Mathematical Knowledge Features. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(9), em2002. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11139

Vancouver

Castro WF, Durango-Urrego JH, Pino-Fan LR. Preservice Teachers’ Argumentation and Some Relationships to Didactic-Mathematical Knowledge Features. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2021;17(9):em2002. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11139

AMA

Castro WF, Durango-Urrego JH, Pino-Fan LR. Preservice Teachers’ Argumentation and Some Relationships to Didactic-Mathematical Knowledge Features. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2021;17(9), em2002. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11139

Chicago

Castro, Walter F, John Henry Durango-Urrego, and Luis R Pino-Fan. "Preservice Teachers’ Argumentation and Some Relationships to Didactic-Mathematical Knowledge Features". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2021 17 no. 9 (2021): em2002. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11139

Harvard

Castro, W. F., Durango-Urrego, J. H., and Pino-Fan, L. R. (2021). Preservice Teachers’ Argumentation and Some Relationships to Didactic-Mathematical Knowledge Features. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(9), em2002. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11139

MLA

Castro, Walter F et al. "Preservice Teachers’ Argumentation and Some Relationships to Didactic-Mathematical Knowledge Features". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 17, no. 9, 2021, em2002. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11139