Investigating Students’ Mathematical Argumentation Ability in Solving PISA-like Mathematics Tasks on Change and Relationships

Abstract

This study investigates the mathematical argumentation ability of 15-year-old secondary school students in solving PISA-like mathematics tasks within the content domain of change and relationships. Conducted at Secondary School in Palembang, Indonesia, the study employed a descriptive qualitative approach involving classroom observations, interviews, document analysis, and written tests. Two PISA-modeled tasks were used, focusing on argumentation indicators such as claim, evidence, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal. Results indicate that students were particularly strong in articulating claims and providing supporting evidence but struggled with qualifiers and rebuttals. The claim indicator appeared most frequently, followed by evidence, warrant, and backing, while qualifiers and rebuttals were rarely observed. Students expressed greater confidence in written reasoning than in oral explanations. This study contributes to understanding mathematical literacy by highlighting the importance of structured argumentation in solving real-world mathematical problems. The findings suggest that integrating PISA-like tasks into classroom instruction—particularly through formative assessments, problem-based learning activities, and reflective discussions—can enhance students’ reasoning and justification skills. Such practices can also help teachers evaluate mathematical literacy more effectively and cultivate classroom environments that promote evidence-based reasoning and critical evaluation of alternative solutions.