Date
Publisher
arXiv
Facilitating productive mathematical argumentation, especially asking rational questions, is essential yet remains challenging for pre-service mathematics teachers (PMTs), who often have limited opportunities to apply abstract theoretical knowledge in authentic practice. At the same time, recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have expanded the potential for simulating students in educational settings, enabling low-risk environments for instructional practice. To inform the design of a system that supports PMTs in orchestrating classroom argumentation, we conducted a formative study with eight experienced mathematics teachers to identify key design requirements, including personalization, realistic simulations, structured reflection, and ease of use. Building on these requirements, we developed ArguMath, an AI-simulated classroom environment that supports PMTs in practicing the orchestration of mathematical argumentation. ArguMath comprises three core components: (1) customization of classroom settings; (2) simulation of classroom discussions with AI-based students grounded in authentic transcripts and augmented with real-time instructional suggestions; and (3) structured reflection through discourse annotation and overall feedback. Results from an exploratory user study with seven PMTs, complemented by interviews with four experienced teachers, indicate that ArguMath has the potential to support PMTs' classroom orchestration skills, particularly theory-aligned questioning strategies.
Study at a glance
- Question: Can an AI-simulated classroom help pre-service teachers practice facilitating classroom mathematical argumentation?
- Setting and data: Seven pre-service teachers in an undergraduate program and four experienced teachers; 12 eighth-grade TIMSS Video lessons.
- Method: System development, within-subjects user study with dialogue analysis, and expert interviews.
Why it matters
Pre-service mathematics teachers often lack sufficient practice in facilitating student mathematical argumentation. Existing classroom simulations rarely support whole-class argumentation or integrate pedagogical frameworks into real-time guidance and reflection.
Key findings
- Pre-service teachers using ArguMath elicited more student responses (89 vs. 76) and asked more framework-coded questions (68 vs. 49) than when using the baseline system.
- ArguMath fostered a wider diversity of teacher questioning strategies and student argument components, achieving higher Shannon's entropy scores than the baseline.
- Participants rated ArguMath higher than the baseline across all measures, highlighting its realism, questioning practice, and actionable feedback for professional development.
Summary drafted with AI from the full paper and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.
What is the application?
Who is the user?
Who age?
Why use AI?
Study design
