Integrating argumentation in teaching probability: exploring the pedagogic impact on culturally diverse secondary school learners in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe

Abstract

The integration of argumentation into mathematics education is increasingly perceived as a crucial pedagogical strategy that enhances learners’ engagement and understanding of challenging concepts such as probability. Probability helps learners cope with real scenarios that entail risk and uncertainty. Although argumentation is globally acknowledged, empirical studies evaluating its efficacy within culturally diverse contexts such as among secondary school learners in Bulawayo, remain limited. The lack of such studies calls for further research into how effectively argumentation can be incorporated into the teaching of probability in order to enhance learner achievements. Hence, this study sought to explore the effectiveness of incorporating argumentation into the teaching of probability to the culturally diverse secondary school learners in Bulawayo Central district, focusing on its impact on learners’ academic performances, attitudes, motivation, and critical thinking. The use of the pragmatic paradigm provided the philosophical flexibility to integrate both quantitative measures and qualitative learner experiences thereby ensuring a practically relevant evaluation of the argumentation-based intervention. Because there were only two secondary school mathematics classes at the selected school, a census approach was adopted, encompassing both intact classes (N = 40, with 20 learners each). Cluster randomisation was then applied to designate one intact class as the experimental group, which received argumentation-based instruction, while the counterpart class served as the control group, taught through traditional methods. Quantitative data were collected through pre-tests and post-tests while qualitative data were collected through focus group discussions, and semi-structured questionnaires. The quantitative data were analysed using Mann Whitney U test, and the Difference in Difference (DID) analysis. The pre-test results yielded no statistically significant difference (U = 197.00, p = 0.925, p > 0.05; with a Cohen’s d of 0.015) in performance between the experimental and control groups. However, the post-test results (U = 28.000, p = 0.015, p < 0.05; with Cohen’s d = 0.855) indicated a very large and significant improvement in learners’ performances. The Difference in Difference (DID) analysis further highlighted an average improvement of 11.05 points in academic performance for the experimental group, demonstrating the effectiveness of the argumentation-based instruction. The thematically analysed qualitative data revealed that the argumentation intervention significantly improved the learners’ attitudes, motivation, engagement, enthusiasm, and a deeper understanding of probability concepts among the experimental group learners. Insights from the qualitative results support the quantitative success as shown by increased confidence and motivation among the learners. Learners reported that a shift in their attitudes towards probability and their participation in argumentation activities improved their conceptual understanding of probability. This combination of the quantitative and qualitative data paints a comprehensive picture of the intervention’s effects, highlighting that when learners feel more engaged and confident, their performance reflects the change. The findings suggest that integrating argumentation in teaching probability is an effective instructional strategy that improves the performance of culturally diverse secondary school learners. This study, therefore, recommends the adoption of argumentation as a fundamental approach in mathematics and statistics education, emphasising its potential to foster critical thinking and deeper conceptual understanding among learners. This can be achieved through leveraging the learners’ cultural backgrounds as a sense-making resource.