Purpose: One of the fundamental goals of educational systems is to cultivate individuals who are capable of accessing information and critically evaluating its accuracy. The ability to engage in logical reasoning and to present arguments coherently and persuasively has become an increasingly essential competency in the current societal context. This study aims to examine students’ argumentation schemes, proof schemes, and their perspectives within the context of Argumentation and Proof-Based Mathematics Instruction. Method: A qualitative research design was employed to explore the impact of Argumentation and Proof-Based Mathematics Instruction (APBMI). The study was conducted with 30 sixth-grade students in Kayseri, Türkiye. To conduct a detailed analysis of qualitative data, 12 students were selected from among the thirty students and interviewed. A 20-hour instructional program was designed and implemented over six weeks. Findings: Based on the analysis of students’ responses, two levels of argumentation quality, “demonstrate an acceptable level of argumentation quality” and “demonstrate a good level of argumentation quality,” were identified. In addition, students’ proof schemes were analyzed using specially designed proof tasks. Students were able to construct external, experimental, and analytical proof schemes. Content analysis of the interview data revealed three main themes: usefulness, effectiveness, and collaborative learning. Conclusion: The results indicate that students demonstrated varying levels of competence in argumentation processes. Regarding APBMI, students generally held positive views concerning its usefulness, effectiveness, and capacity to support collaborative learning. The fact that students produced evidence at external, experimental, and analytical levels reflects the diversity of their proof skills. Taken together, these findings suggest that APBMI can make a positive contribution to classroom practices in mathematics instruction.
Orman et al. (Sun,) studied this question.