Defining and measuring quality in students’ mathematical writing: a systematic literature review

Abstract

Mathematical communication, encompassing writing in, about, and for mathematics, is a critical competency. Defining excellent mathematical writing standards, however, remains challenging. To address this, we conducted a systematic review of 48 scholarly works on quality in mathematical writing. Our findings reveal mathematical writing for different purposes under scrutiny, including general mathematical writing, proof writing, reflective writing, expository writing, and descriptive writing during problem solving. To assess quality, researchers explore a variety of facets, such as syntax and semantics. Progression pathways vary, with both quantitative and qualitative evaluations—analysing text structure, writing style, and the use of different semiotic elements. It seems that in mathematics education, a consensus on quality measurement remains elusive. Proof writing is a notable exception. Among reviewed articles examining proof writing, a common set of standards emerges and provides valuable guidance. We propose that mathematical writing, perhaps especially in the context of reporting solutions in problem solving, can draw from proof writing standards. ‘Good’ mathematical writing would then require students to focus on (1) defining assumptions and assigning variables; (2) producing a coherent narrative, including relevant calculations (semantic issues); (3) using correct language, representations, and mathematical symbols (syntax issues); and (4) attending to what is appropriate in the context.