Indriati Nurul Hidayah, Cholis Sa'dijah, Subanji Subanji, Sudirman Sudirman


When students solve an algebra problem, students try to deduce the facts in the problem. This step is imperative, students can draw conclusions from the facts and devise a plan to solve the problem. Drawing conclusions from facts is called reasoning. Some kinds of reasoning are deductive, inductive, and abductive. This article explores the characteristics of some types of abductive reasoning used by mathematics education students in problem-solving related to using facts on the problems. Fifty-eight students were asked to solve an algebra problem. It was found that the student’s solutions could be grouped into four types of abductive reasoning. From each group, one student was interviewed to have more details on the types. First, the creative conjectures type, the students can solve the problems and develop new ideas related to the problems; second, fact optimization type, the students make conjecture of the answer, then confirm it by deductive reasoning; third, factual error type, students use facts outside of the problems to solve it, but the facts are wrong; and fourth,  mistaken fact type, the students assume the questionable thing as a given fact. Therefore, teachers should encourage the students to use creative conjectures and fact optimization when learning mathematics.


Characteristics; Abductive reasoning; Algebra problems

Full Text:



Alirezaie, M., & Loutfi, A. (2014). Automated reasoning using abduction for interpretation of medical signals. Journal of Biomedical Semantics, 5(35), 1–16.

Aliseda, A. (2006). Abductive Reasoning (1st ed.). Cham: Springer.

Baccaglini-Frank, A. (2019). Dragging, instrumented abduction and evidence, in processes of conjecture generation in a dynamic geometry environment. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 51(5), 779–791.

Bellucci, F. (2018). Eco and Peirce on Abduction. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy, X(1), 0–20.

Cañadas, M. C., & Castro, E. (2007). A proposal of categorisation for analysing inductive reasoning. Pna, 1(2), 67–78.

Chew, M. S. F., Shahrill, M., & Li, H. C. (2019). The Integration of a Problem-Solving Framework for Brunei High School Mathematics Curriculum in Increasing Student's Affective Competency. Journal on Mathematics Education, 10(2), 215-228.

Cifarelli, V. V. (2016). The Importance of Abductive Reasoning in Mathematical Problem Solving. Semiotics as a Tool for Learning Mathematics, 209–225.

Cohen, H., & Stemmer, B. (2007). Consciousness and Cognition: Fragments of Mind and Brain. In Academic Press, Year: (1st-st ed.). Academic Press.

Dong, A., Lovallo, D., & Mounarath, R. (2015). The effect of abductive reasoning on concept selection decisions. Design Studies, 37, 37–58.

Duarte, A. (2019). On abduction and interpretation. CRITICA, Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofia, 51(151), 65–84.

Eco, U. (1984). Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language. Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language.

Ekawati, R., Kohar, A. W., Imah, E. M., Amin, S. M., & Fiangga, S. (2019). Students' Cognitive Processes in Solving Problem Related to the Concept of Area Conservation. Journal on Mathematics Education, 10(1), 21-36.

Farah, M. J. (1988). Is Visual Imagery Really Visual? Overlooked Evidence From Neuropsychology. Psychological Review, 95(3), 307–317.

Ferguson, J. P. (2019). Students are not inferential-misfits: Naturalising logic in the science classroom. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 51(8), 852–865.

Ferrando, E. (2006). System Abductive. In N. Novotna, J., Moraova, H., Kratka, M., Stehlikova (Ed.), Proceedings of the 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 3–57).

Finke, R. A., & Slayton, K. (1988). Explorations of creative visual synthesis in mental imagery. Memory & Cognition, 16(3), 252–257.

Gallian, J. A. (2016). Contemporary Abstract Algebra (ninth edit). Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning.

Gonzalez, M. E. Q., & Haselager, W. F. G. (2005). Creativity: Surprise and abductive reasoning. Semiotica, 153(January 2005), 325–341.

Gurat, M. G. (2018). Mathematical Problem-solving Strategies among Student Teachers. Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science, 11(3), 53–64.

Hwang, M. Y., Hong, J. C., Ye, J. H., Wu, Y. F., Tai, K. H., & Kiu, M. C. (2019). Practicing abductive reasoning: The correlations between cognitive factors and learning effects. Computers and Education, 138(August 2018), 33–45.

Im, S. H., & Jitendra, A. K. (2020). Analysis of Proportional Reasoning and Misconceptions among Students with Mathematical Learning Disabilities. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 57(November 2019), 100753.

Jäder, J., Lithner, J., & Sidenvall, J. (2019). Mathematical problem solving in textbooks from twelve countries. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 0(0), 1–17.

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1999). Deductive reasoning. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 109–135.

Lailiyah, S., Nusantara, T., Sa’Dijah, C., Irawan, E. B., Kusaeri, & Asyhar, A. H. (2018). Structuring students’ analogical reasoning in solving algebra problem. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 296(1).

Leighton, J. P., & Sternberg, R. J. (2003). The Nature of Reasoning Edited by.

Ma, J., Russo, A., & Broda, K. (2008). DARE : a system for distributed abductive reasoning. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst, 16, 271–297.

Mirabile, P., & Douven, I. (2020). Abductive conditionals as a test case for inferentialism. Cognition, 200(June 2019), 104232.

Moore, K. C. (2014). Quantitative reasoning and the sine function: The case of Zac. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45(1), 102–138.

Moscoso, J. N., & Palacios, L. (2019). Abductive reasoning: A contribution to knowledge creation in education. Cadernos de Pesquisa, 49(171), 308–329.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc. 1906.

Niiniluoto, I. (2018). Truth-Seeking by Abduction. In Springer-Verlag. Springer.

O’Reilly, C. J. (2016). Creative Engineers: Is Abductive Reasoning Encouraged enough in Degree Project Work? Procedia CIRP, 50, 547–552.

Otten, M., Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. D., Veldhuis, M., & Heize, A. (2019). Developing algebraic reasoning in primary school using a hanging mobile as a learning supportive tool /. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 42(3), 615–663.

Park, J. H., & Lee, K. H. (2016). How can students generalize the chain rule? The roles of abduction in mathematical modeling. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(9), 2331–2352.

Peirce, C. S. (1958). The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce 1.

Preyer, G., & Mans, D. (1999). INTRODUCTION: On Contemporary Developments in the Theory of Argumentation Stephan. Proto Sociology, An International Journal of Interdisplinary Research, 13.

Rapanta, C. (2018). Teaching as abductive reasoning: The role of argumentation. Informal Logic, 38(2), 293–311.

Reiss, K., & Törner, G. (2007). Problem solving in the mathematics classroom: The German perspective. ZDM - International Journal on Mathematics Education.

Rivera, F. (2013). Teaching and Learning Patterns in School Mathematics. In Teaching and Learning Patterns in School Mathematics.

Rivera, F. D. (2010). Visual templates in pattern generalization activity. In Educational Studies in Mathematics (Vol. 73, Issue 3).

Rivera, F. D., & Becker, J. R. (2007). Abduction in Pattern Generalization. Proceedings of the 31st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 4(2003), 97–104.

Seel, N. M. (2012). Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (Seel.N.M. (ed.)). Springer New york. 978-1-4419-1428-6.

Shodikin, A. (2017). Effect of Learning With Abductive-Deductive Strategy Towards the Achievement of Reasoning Ability of High School Students. Infinity Journal, 6(2), 111.

Sternberg, R. J. &, & Sternberg, K. (2012). Cognitive Psychology, (Sixth Edit). Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Subanji, R., & Supratman, A. M. (2015). The Pseudo-Covariational Reasoning Thought Processes in Constructing Graph Function of Reversible Event Dynamics Based on Assimilation and Accommodation Frameworks. Korean Society of Mathematical Education The, 19(1), 61–79.

Thagard, P., & Shelley, C. (1997). Abductive reasoning: Logic, visual thinking, and coherence. Logic and Scientific Methods, 259.

Tomiyama, T., Takeda, H., Yoshioka, M., & Shimomura, Y. (2010). Abduction for creative design. Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, 3, 543–552.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Journal on Mathematics Education
Doctoral Program on Mathematics Education
Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Sriwijaya
Kampus FKIP Bukit Besar
Jl. Srijaya Negara, Bukit Besar
Palembang - 30139

p-ISSN: 2087-8885 | e-ISSN: 2407-0610
Journal on Mathematics Education is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

View My Stats