Abstract

Toulmin’s argumentation pattern (TAP) provides a conceptual framework for structuring and analysing the development of arguments and has been increasingly adopted in mathematics education research. This study conducts a bibliometric analysis to provide an overview of the development of TAP-related research in mathematics education and to identify prominent authors, publication venues, and thematic trends within the field. Bibliographic data were retrieved from the Scopus database using search terms related to Toulmin, mathematics, and education, covering publications up to the end of 2025. Following the screening process, 113 publications were included and analysed using the R environment in conjunction with VOSviewer. The findings indicate a marked increase in scholarly interest in TAP within mathematics education in recent years. Mejía-Ramos, J. P. and Conner, A. emerged as prominent contributors, while Educational Studies in Mathematics was among the publication venues with a substantial presence in the analysed dataset. Thematic analysis suggests that the scope of TAP-related research has gradually broadened from a primary focus on the structure of mathematical argumentation to a wider range of contexts, including collective argumentation, classroom argumentation practices, teacher education, and technology-supported learning environments. In particular, recent studies indicate growing interest in integrating TAP with interactive pedagogical approaches and digital technologies to support the construction and development of mathematical argumentation.

Keywords

References

• Açıkgöz, M., & Yıldız, Z. (2026). Fostering mathematical thinking and social interaction: Third graders’ reflections on modeling tasks. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 8(2), e42765. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPSP.202642765
• Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
• Baas, J., Schotten, M., Plume, A., Côté, G., & Karimi, R. (2020). Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00019
• Badjeber, R., Supriyatman, S., Afadil, A., & Hadi, W. (2024). A review of Toulmin’s argumentation in mathematics and science learning: implementation, impact and the role of the teacher. Jurnal Pendidikan MIPA, 25(3), 1199–1213. https://doi.org/10.23960/jpmipa/v25i3.pp1199-1213
• Bağdat, O., & Yanık, H. B. (2023). Improving Turkish beginning mathematics teachers’ instruction: Using five practices to maintain cognitively demanding tasks. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 5(3), 89–111. https://doi.org/10.33902/jpsp.202323636
• Berhe, G. T., Weldeyesus, K. M., Weldeana, H. N., Weldeslassie, A. T., & Tareke, A. A. (2025). Challenges in integrating GeoGebra for mathematics instruction in Ethiopian universities. International Journal of Didactical Studies, 6(3), 34086. https://doi.org/10.33902/ijods.202534086
• Chain, C. P., Santos, A. C. D., De Castro, L. G., & Prado, J. W. D. (2019). Bibliometric analysis of the quantitative methods applied to the measurement of industrial clusters. Journal of Economic Surveys, 33(1), 60–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12267
• Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. https://corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Math_Standards1.pdf
• Conner, A., Singletary, L. M., Smith, R. C., Wagner, P. A., & Francisco, R. T. (2014). Identifying kinds of reasoning in collective argumentation. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 16(3), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2014.921131
• Çelik Demirci, S., & Baki, A. (2023). Characterizing mathematical discourse according to teacher and student interactions: The core of mathematical discourse. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 7(4), 144–164. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202321852
• Davor, I., Asare, C., & Abanamu, A. (2026). Predictors of students’ mathematics problem-solving skills: Feedback, beliefs, learning support, and technology. Sustainable and Pedagogical Technologies, 2(2), e43735. https://doi.org/10.33902/SPT.202643735
• Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
• Drijvers, P., Grauwin, S., & Trouche, L. (2020). When bibliometrics met mathematics education research: The case of instrumental orchestration. ZDM-Mathematics Education, 52, 1455–1469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01169-3
• Ekawati, A., Siswono, T. Y. E., & Lukito, A. (2025). Collective argumentation in mathematics education: A bibliometric analysis. Multidisciplinary Reviews, 8(6), 2025183. https://doi.org/10.31893/multirev.2025183
• Fajri, H. M., Marini, A., & Suyono. (2025). A bibliometric study on mathematical modelling in elementary schools in the Scopus database between 1990–2024. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 21(2), em2577. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/15916
• Fleiss, J. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76(5), 378–382. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031619
• Forman, E. A., Larreamendy-Joerns, J., Stein, M. K., & Brown, C. A. (1998). “You’re going to want to find out which and prove it”: Collective argumentation in a mathematics classroom. Learning and Instruction, 8(6), 527–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00033-4
• Gutiérrez-Salcedo, M., Martínez, M. Á., Moral-Munoz, J.A., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Cobo, M. J. (2018). Some bibliometric procedures for analyzing and evaluating research fields. Applied Intelligence, 48(5), 1275–1287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-017-1105-y
• Hanafi, N. H., Zakaria, M. I., Ismail, N., Abdul Hanid, M. F., & Adawiyah Suhaimee, N. R. (2025). Insights into M-learning in mathematics education: A bibliometric study from 2007 to 2024. International Journal of Instruction, 18(3), 637–658. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2025.18333a
• Inglis, M., Mejia-Ramos, J. P., & Simpson, A. (2007). Modelling mathematical argumentation: the importance of qualification. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-9059-8
• Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_1
• Julius, R., Abd Halim, M. S., Abdul Hadi, N., Alias, A. N., Mohd Khalid, M. H., Mahfodz, Z., & Ramli, F. F. (2021). Bibliometric analysis of research in mathematics education using Scopus database. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(12), em2040. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11329
• Kartika, H., Budiarto, M. T., Fuad, Y., & Bonyah, E. (2023). Bibliometrics analysis of research on argumentation in mathematics education. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 11(5), 1346–1365. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.2904
• Kelly, D.L., Centurino, V.A.S., Martin, M.O., & Mullis, I.V.S. (Eds.) (2020). TIMSS 2019 encyclopedia: Education policy and curriculum in mathematics and science. https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/encyclopedia/
• Kirby, A. (2023). Exploratory bibliometrics: Using VOSviewer as a preliminary research tool. Publications, 11(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications11010010
• Kludze, A. K. (2026). Beyond memorization: A study of problem-solving across math and medicine. International Journal of Didactical Studies, 7(3), e36803. https://doi.org/10.33902/ijods.202636803
• Kondrashev, S. V., Sokolova, N. L., Zaripova, Z. F., Khairullina, E. R., Omarova, L. B., Zamaraeva, E. I., & Dobrokhotov, D. A. (2024). Innovations in science education: A bibliometric exploration of trends and future directions. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 20(6), em2453. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/14591
• Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures (pp. 229–269). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Lagisz, M., Yang, Y., Young, S., & Nakagawa, S. (2025). A practical guide to evaluating sensitivity of literature search strings for systematic reviews using relative recall. Research Synthesis Methods, 16(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/rsm.2024.6
• Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
• Lazarou, D., & Erduran, S. (2021). “Evaluate what I was taught, not what you expected me to know”: Evaluating students’ arguments based on science teachers’ adaptations to Toulmin’s argument pattern. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 32(3), 306–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2020.1820663
• Lehmann, T. H., & Friend, L. (2025). Mathematical argumentative writing in K-12 education: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 23(8), 3679-3705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-025-10590-7
• Memiş, Y. (2025). Examining the potential and pitfalls of AI in problem solving. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 9(2), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202532099
• Muhammad, R. R., Lawson, D., Aslam, F., & Crawford, M. (2023). Indonesian curriculum 2013 ten years on: Impact on mathematics teaching. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 6, 109–136. https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.616SI
• Niss, M. A. (2003). Mathematical competencies and the learning of mathematics: The Danish KOM project. In A. Gagatsis, & S. Papastavridis (Eds.), 3rd Mediterranean Conference on Mathematical Education - Athens, Hellas 3-4-5 January 2003 (pp. 116–124). Hellenic Mathematical Society.
• Nowakowska, M. (2025). A comprehensive approach to preprocessing data for bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 130(9), 5191–5225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05415-x
• OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework: Mathematics, reading, science and financial literacy. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en
• Osei, E. G., Osei-Bona, H. K., & Adu, F. G. (2026). Cooperative learning as a sustainable pedagogical strategy for enhancing mathematics achievement in secondary education. Sustainable Education and Digital Transformation, 1(1), e43539. https://doi.org/10.33902/SEDT.202643539
• Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T., Mulrow, C., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L. A., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
• Pedemonte, B., & Balacheff, N. (2016). Establishing links between conceptions, argumentation and proof through the ck¢ - enriched Toulmin model. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 41, 104–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2015.10.008
• Rogers, G., Szomszor, M., & Adams, J. (2020). Sample size in bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 125(1), 777–794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03647-7
• Roldan-Valadez, E., Salazar-Ruiz, S. Y., Ibarra-Contreras, R., & Rios, C. (2019). Current concepts on bibliometrics: a brief review about impact factor, Eigenfactor score, CiteScore, SCImago Journal Rank, Source-Normalised Impact per Paper, H-index, and alternative metrics. Irish Journal of Medical Science, 188(3), 939–951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-018-1936-5
• Singh, V. K., Singh, P., Karmakar, M., Leta, J., & Mayr, P. (2021). The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 126(6), 5113–5142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5
• Slavit, D., Lesseig, K., & Simpson, A. (2022). An analytic framework for understanding student thinking in STEM contexts. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 6(2), 132–148. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202213536
• Şahal, M., & Akdaş, A. (2026). The impact of Socratic method on middle school students’ achievement in non-routine problem solving and their attitudes toward mathematical problem solving. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPSP.202645881
• Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005
• Tristanti, L. B., & Nusantara, T. (2021). Identifying students’ mathematical argumentation competence in solving cubes and pyramid problems. Journal of Physics Conference Series, 1933(1), 012118. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1933/1/012118
• Turós, M., Kenyeres, A. Z., Balla, G., Gazdag, E., Szabó, E., & Szűts, Z. (2025). A Toulmin model analysis of student argumentation on artificial intelligence. Education Sciences, 15(9), 1226. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15091226
• Urhan, S., Gençaslan, O., & Dost, Ş. (2024). An argumentation experience regarding concepts of calculus with ChatGPT. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(10), 7186–7211. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2024.2308093
• Urhan, S., & Zengin, Y. (2024). Investigating university students’ argumentations and proofs using dynamic mathematics software in collaborative learning, debate, and self-reflection stages. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 10(2), 380–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-022-00207-7
• van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
• Visser, M., Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2021). Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(1), 20–41. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00112
• Williams, R., & Bornmann, L. (2016). Sampling issues in bibliometric analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 10(4), 1225–1232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.11.004
• Yang, R. (2022). An empirical study of claims and qualifiers in ESL students' argumentative writing based on the toulmin model. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 7(6), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-022-00133-w
• Zengin, D., & Tapan Broutin, M. S. (2025). An analysis of gifted students’ proof and reasoning process based on the Toulmin model. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 20(4), em0855. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/17050
• Zhuang, Y., & Conner, A. (2022). Teachers’ use of rational questioning strategies to promote student participation in collective argumentation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 111(2), 345–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-022-10160-6

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.