Two Frameworks for Mathematical Reasoning at Preschool Level

  • Lovisa SumpterEmail author


In this chapter, young children’s mathematical reasoning is explored using two different frameworks. Two cases of reasoning are analysed and discussed in order to illustrate how the mathematical foundation is used in young children’s arguments and choices that they make when solving mathematical problems. The first framework focuses on arguments and warrants and is used to analyse individual reasoning. The second identifies strategy choices and categorises different types of reasoning that are developed in groups. In both frameworks, the mathematical foundation is central.


  1. Ball, D., & Bass, H. (2003). Making mathematics reasonable in school. In J. Kilpatrick, G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 27–44). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  2. Bergqvist, E. (2006). Mathematics and mathematics education two sides of the same coin. Some results on positive currents related to polynomial convexity and creative reasoning in university exams in mathematics. PhD thesis, Umeå University, Umeå.Google Scholar
  3. Bergqvist, T., Lithner, J., & Sumpter, L. (2007). Upper secondary students’ task reasoning. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 39(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Björklund, C. (2008). Toddlers’ opportunities to learn mathematics. International Journal of Early Childhood, 40(1), 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bobis, J., Clarke, B., Clarke, D., Thomas, G., Wright, R., Young-Loveridge, J., & Gould, P. (2005). Supporting teachers in the development of young children’s mathematical thinking: Three large scale cases. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 16(3), 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bobis, J., Mulligan, J., & Lowrie, T. (2008). Mathematics for children: Challenging children to think mathematically (3rd ed.). Sydney: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  7. Charlesworth, R. (2005). Prekindergarten mathematics: Connecting with national standards. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(4), 229–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2007). Effects of a preschool mathematics curriculum: Summative research on the Building Blocks project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 136–163.Google Scholar
  9. Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1992). A constructivist alternative to the representational view of mind in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(1), 2–33. doi: 10.2307/749161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. English, L. D. (2012). Data modelling with first-grade students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 81(1), 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hiebert, J. (2003). What research says about the NCTM standards. In J. Kilpatrick, G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 5–26). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  12. Krummheuer, G. (2007). Argumentation and participation in the primary mathematics classroom: Two episodes and related theoretical abductions. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26, 60–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lee, J. S., & Ginsburg, H. P. (2009). Early childhood teachers’ misconceptions about mathematics education for young children in the United States. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 34(4), 37–45.Google Scholar
  14. Lithner, J. (2008). A research framework for creative and imitative reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(3), 255–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McMullen, J. A., Hannula-Sormunen, M. M., & Lehtinen, E. (2013). Young children’s recognition of quantitative relations in mathematically unspecified settings. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(3), 450–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mueller, M. F. (2009). The co-construction of arguments by middle-school students. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 28, 138–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mueller, M. F., Yankelewitz, D., & Maher, C. A. (2012). A framework for analyzing the collaborative construction of arguments and its interplay with agency. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80, 369–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mulligan, J. T., & Vergnaud, G. (2006). Research on children’s early mathematical development: Towards integrated perspectives. In A. Gutiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and future (pp. 261–276). London: Sense.Google Scholar
  19. National Agency for Education. (2011a). Curriculum for the Preschool Lpfö 98: Revised 2010. Stockholm: Skolverket.Google Scholar
  20. National Agency for Education. (2011b). Curriculum for compulsory school, preschool class and recreation centre 2011. Västerås: Edita.Google Scholar
  21. National Agency for Education. (2011c). Curriculum for the upper secondary school. Västerås: Edita.Google Scholar
  22. National Agency for Education. (2012). TIMSS 2011 Svenska grundskoleelevers kunskaper i matematik och naturvetenskap i ett internationellt perspektiv [TIMSS 2011 Swedish compulsory school students’ knowledge in mathematics and science in an international perspective]. Stockholm: Skolverket.Google Scholar
  23. NCTM [National Council of Teachers of Mathematics]. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: The Council.Google Scholar
  24. Niss, M. (2003). Mathematical competencies and the learning of mathematics: The Danish KOM project. In Third Mediterranean conference on mathematics education (pp. 115–124).Google Scholar
  25. Nunes, T., Bryant, P., Barros, R., & Sylva, K. (2012). The relative importance of two different mathematical abilities to mathematical achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 136–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Papic, M., Mulligan, J. T., & Mitchelmore, M. C. (2011). Assessing the development of preschoolers’ mathematical patterning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42(3), 237–269.Google Scholar
  27. Perry, B., & Dockett, S. (2007). Play and mathematics. Adelaide: Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers (Retrieved January 17, 2013, from
  28. Säfström, A. I. (2013). Exercising mathematical competence. Practising representation theory and representing mathematical practice. PhD thesis, Göteborgs Universitet, Göteborg.Google Scholar
  29. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  30. Skemp, R. (1978). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Arithmetic Teacher, 26(3), 9–15.Google Scholar
  31. Sumpter, L. (2013). Themes and interplay of beliefs in mathematical reasoning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(5), 1115–1135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sumpter, L., & Hedefalk, M. (2015). Preschool children’s collective mathematical reasoning during free outdoor play. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 39, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Updated edition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. van Oers, B. (1996). Are you sure? Stimulating mathematical thinking during young children’s play. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 4(1), 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Voigt, J. (1994). Negotiation of mathematical meaning and learning mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26(2/3), 275–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wyndhamn, J., & Säljö, R. (1997). Word problems and mathematical reasoning—a study of children’s mastery of reference and meaning in textual realities. Learning and Instruction, 7(4), 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yackel, E., & Hanna, G. (2003). Reasoning and proof. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 227–236). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dalarna UniversityFalunSweden

Personalised recommendations