Prospective elementary teachers’ claiming in responses to false generalizations

When faced with a false generalization and a counterexample, what types of claims do prospective K-8 teachers make, and what factors influence the type and prudence of their claims relative to the data, observations, and arguments reported? This article addresses that question. Responses to refutation tasks and cognitive interviews were used to explore claiming. It was found that prospective K-8 teachers’ claiming can be influenced by knowledge of argumentation; knowledge and use of the mathematical practice of exception barring; perceptions of the task; use of natural language; knowledge of, use of, and skill with the mathematics register; and abilities to technically handle data or conceptual insights. A distinction between technical handlings for developing claims and technical handlings for supporting claims was made. It was found that prudent claims can arise from arguer-developed representations that afford conceptual insights, even when searching for support for a different claim.     

Proof validation and modification in secondary school geometry

Proof validation is important in school mathematics because it can provide a basis upon which to critique mathematical arguments. While there has been some previous research on proof validation, the need for studies with school students is pressing. For this paper, we focus on proof validation and modification during secondary school geometry. For that purpose, we employ Lakatos’ notion of local counterexample that rejects a specific step in a proof. By using Toulmin’s framework to analyze data from a task-based questionnaire completed by 32 ninth-grade students in a class in Japan, we identify what attempts the students made in producing local counterexamples to their proofs and modifying their proofs to deal with local counterexamples. We found that student difficulties related to producing diagrams that satisfied the condition of the set proof problem and to generating acceptable warrants for claims. The classroom use of tasks that entail student discovery of local counterexamples may help to improve students’ learning of proof and proving.     

Promoting mathematical proof from collective argumentation in primary school

The purpose of this research is to promote the construction of mathematical proof from argumentation at the primary level. To show this is a viable instructional strategy at the primary level, we use a teaching experiment methodology and a task related to geometric proof in this research study. To model and analyze the collective argumentation that took place in the classroom, we reconstructed the discussion using the extended Toulmin model. Collective argumentation at the primary level is a valuable opportunity for primary students and their teachers to generate mathematical proof through collaboration.     

Improving evidential argumentation through statistical sampling: evaluating the effects of a classroom intervention for at-risk 7th-graders

A nine-day intervention was implemented in a 7th-grade all-girls classroom with the objective of improving the students’ evidential argumentation through the use of statistical sampling concepts. The 12 student participants were from economically disadvantaged backgrounds and were considered at-risk for dropping out of school. During the intervention, the students worked in small groups, gathering data from newspaper clippings and websites, in the construction of arguments about a controversial social issue. Paper-and-pencil tests were administered before and after the intervention. The findings revealed that students were better able to (a) rely on survey data, as opposed to personal opinion, to support their claims about simulated real-life situations, and (b) use sampling concepts to explain how the data supported their claims. The results indicate that even the most disadvantaged student could learn to reason statistically, and they also point to several characteristics of learning environments that are effective in meeting this objective.     

Teaching-Learning of Evaluative Criteria for Mathematical Arguments Through Classroom Discourse: A Cross-National Study

Videotaped lessons of 5th graders on equivalent fractions from 7 American and 6 Japanese classrooms were analyzed in terms of a recurrent pattern in public discourse among a teacher and students. This pattern—called inquiry, response, feedback—occurs when a teacher initiates discourse (mostly with an inquiry), a student or students respond (often with an answer to the teacher inquiry), and the teacher provides feedback to the student's response. We found2 approaches to the teaching-learning of the criteria for evaluating mathematical arguments. In the Japanese classroom, students were encouraged to offer their own argument to the whole class and evaluate arguments proposed by other students. They seldom were given direct evaluation by their teacher. In contrast, American teachers often gave individual elaboration as well as direct evaluation to the student's responses, and some of the teachers offered their own opinions about mathematics, about valid ways of argumentation, or about both. The Japanese approach would help students acquire evaluative criteria indirectly through participating in mathematical discourse, whereas the American approach would help students learn modes of arguments through direct instruction.     

Are self-constructed and student-generated arguments acceptable proofs? Pre-service secondary mathematics teachers’ evaluations

This study examined 14 pre-service secondary mathematics teachers’ productions and their evaluations of self-constructed and student-generated arguments in the domains of algebra, geometry, and number theory. Pre-service secondary mathematics teachers’ (PSMTs) evaluations of their own arguments indicate if they considered self-productions as proofs from a learner perspective. Similarly, PSMTs’ evaluations of student-generated arguments indicate if they decided given students’ productions could be counted as proofs from a teacher perspective. Our results show that the majority of PSMTs suspected that their invalid productions did not qualify as proofs. Furthermore, the PSMTs who were confident with their work and claimed that they had constructed a proof were more likely to make a correct judgment on four of the six student-generated arguments. We discuss implications of these findings for supporting PSMTs’ learning of proof and future research on the construction-evaluation activity.     

Content and pedagogical content knowledge in argumentation and proof of future teachers: a comparative case study in Germany and Hong Kong

The results of a comparative case study on mathematical and pedagogical content knowledge in the area of argumentation and proof of future teachers in Germany and Hong Kong are reported in this article. The study forms part of a qualitatively oriented comparative study on future teachers in Australia, Germany, and Hong Kong. Six case studies based on interviews and written questionnaires are described. These case studies show the strengths of the Hong Kong future teachers in mathematical knowledge in the area of argumentation and proof, whereas the three German future teachers perform stronger in the related pedagogical content domain. Furthermore, regarding the German future teachers, it seems that the two domains of knowledge are more strongly connected to each other. The results are interpreted in the light of related research, such as the MT21 study.     

Instructional identities of geometry students

We inspect the hypothesis that geometry students may be oriented toward how they expect that the teacher will evaluate them as students or otherwise oriented to how they expect that their work will give them opportunities to do mathematics. The results reported here are based on a mixed-methods analysis of twenty-two interviews with high school geometry students. In these interviews students respond to three different tasks that presented students with an opportunity to do a proof. Students’ responses are coded according to a scheme based on the hypothesis above. Interviews are also coded using a quantitative linguistic ratio that gauges how prominent the teacher was in the students’ opinions about the viability of these proof tasks. These scores were used in a cluster analysis that yielded three student profiles that we characterize using composite profiles. These profiles highlight the different ways that students can experience proof in the geometry classroom.     

Counterexamples on some articles on quasi-variational inclusion problems

In this paper, by counterexamples, we show that Proposition 3.1 in [5] which has a crucial role for proving the main results is not correct. Also, we give counterexamples, which show that some claims in the proof of the main results in [7, 12] are not valid. Finally, by applying some slightly modifications, we claim that these results can be proved in a similar manner.     

Leone Burton: an appreciation

Some mathematical statements can be validated by a supportive example or refuted by a counterexample. Our study investigated secondary school teachers' knowledge of such proofs. Fifty practising secondary school teachers were first asked to validate/refute six elementary number theory statements, then to suggest justifications that students might give for the same statements, and finally to judge eighteen numerical justifications for the same statements. The findings indicated that teachers are well acquainted with numerical examples and counterexamples as proofs. We also found that teachers' considerations for accepting given justifications involve mathematical aspects as well as didactical ones. Teachers are less familiar with students' tendencies to bring more than one example or counterexample in such proofs.     

Argumentation and algebraic proof

This paper concerns a study analysing cognitive continuities and distances between argumentation supporting a conjecture and its algebraic proof, when solving open problems involving properties of numbers. The aim of this paper is to show that, unlike the geometrical case, the structural distance between argumentation and proof (from an abductive argumentation to a deductive proof) is not one of the possible difficulties met by students in solving such problems. On the contrary, since algebraic proof is characterized by a strong deductive structure, abductive steps in the argumentation activity can be useful in linking the meaning of the letters used in the algebraic proof with numbers used in the argumentation. The analysis of continuities and distances between argumentation and proof is based on the use of Toulmin’s model combined with ck¢ model.     

The role of framing in productive classroom discussions: A case for teacher learning

In this paper, we contrast two mathematical arguments that occurred during an algebra lesson to illustrate the importance of relevant framings in the ensuing arguments. The lesson is taken from a graduate course for elementary teachers who are enrolled in a mathematics specialist program. We use constructs associated with enthnography of argumentation to characterize the framings for warrants and backings that supported the ensuing arguments. Our findings suggest that teachers fully participated in argumentations that were framed by problem situations that were familiar to them, ones that were couched in elementary, fundamental mathematical ideas, and that these types of argumentations were arguably more productive in terms of opportunities for learning.     

Why do U.S. and Chinese students think differently in mathematical problem solving?: Impact of early algebra learning and teachers’ beliefs

This paper reports two studies that examined the impact of early algebra learning and teachers’ beliefs on U.S. and Chinese students’ thinking. The first study examined the extent to which U.S. and Chinese students’ selection of solution strategies and representations is related to their opportunity to learn algebra. The second study examined the impact of teachers’ beliefs on their students’ thinking through analyzing U.S. and Chinese teachers’ scoring of student responses. The results of the first study showed that, for the U.S. sample, students who have formally learned algebraic concepts are as likely to use visual representations as those who have not formally learned algebraic concepts in their problem solving. For the Chinese sample, students rarely used visual representations whether or not they had formally learned algebraic concepts. The findings of the second study clearly showed that U.S. and Chinese teachers view students’ responses involving concrete strategies and visual representations differently. Moreover, although both U.S. and Chinese teachers value responses involving more generalized strategies and symbolic representations equally high, Chinese teachers expect 6th graders to use the generalized strategies to solve problems while U.S. teachers do not. The research reported in this paper contributed to our understanding of the differences between U.S. and Chinese students’ mathematical thinking. This research also established the feasibility of using teachers’ scoring of student responses as an alternative and effective way of examining teachers’ beliefs.     

“I’m not very good at solving problems”: An exploration of students’ problem solving behaviours

This paper reports one aspect of a larger study which looked at the strategies used by a selection of grade 6 students to solve six non-routine mathematical problems. The data revealed that the students exhibited many of the behaviours identified in the literature as being associated with novice and expert problem solvers. However, the categories of ‘novice’ and ‘expert’ were not fully adequate to describe the range of behaviours observed and instead three categories that were characteristic of behaviours associated with ‘naïve’, ‘routine’ and ‘sophisticated’ approaches to solving problems were identified. Furthermore, examination of individual cases revealed that each student's problem solving performance was consistent across a range of problems, indicating a particular orientation towards naïve, routine or sophisticated problem solving behaviours. This paper describes common problem solving behaviours and details three individual cases involving naïve, routine and sophisticated problem solvers.     

How do open-ended problems promote indirect argumentation? Conceptual replications in a Japanese secondary school

The possibility of connecting spontaneous indirect argumentation to indirect mathematical proof has been investigated for decades. It may be effective to use open-ended problems based on the notion of cognitive unity to promote indirect argumentation. Moreover, it also appears useful to analyze students’ indirect argumentation through a model based on the logical structure of indirect proof. However, several convincing critiques of these proposals exist. This study aimed to resolve this dispute and obtain a deeper understanding of indirect argumentation in the process. To achieve this, conceptual replications of previous research were conducted at a Japanese secondary school. The results demonstrated that the exploration of various cases in the situation of an open-ended problem could promote indirect argumentation. Furthermore, the findings indicate that indirect argumentation exhibits diverse characteristics that can be omitted if the analysis is conducted only from a logical perspective.     

What we can learn from analyzing the teacher’s role in collective argumentation

In this paper, I use analyses of collective argumentation in a variety of classroom settings, from elementary school to a university-level differential equations class to illustrate various roles the teacher plays. These include initiating the negotiation of classroom norms that foster argumentation as the core of students’ mathematical activity, providing support for students as they interact with each other to develop arguments, and supplying argumentative supports (data, warrants, and backing) that are either omitted or left implicit. We gain two important insights from these analyses. First, an emphasis on argumentation can be used productively to provide openings in mathematical discussions for new mathematical concepts and tools to emerge. Second, the analyses demonstrate that teachers need to have both an in-depth understanding of students’ mathematical conceptual development and a sophisticated understanding of the mathematical concepts that underlie the instructional activities being used.     

Reflections on “Multiplication as Original Sin”: The implications of using a case to help preservice teachers understand invented algorithms

This article describes the use of a case report, Multiplication as original sin (Corwin, R. B. (1989). Multiplication as original sin. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 8, 223-225), as an assignment in a mathematics course for preservice elementary teachers. In this case study, Corwin described her experience as a 6th grader when she revealed an invented algorithm. Preservice teachers were asked to write reflections and describe why Corwin’s invented algorithm worked. The research purpose was: to learn about the preservice teachers’ understanding of Corwin’s invented multiplication algorithm (its validity); and, to identify thought-provoking issues raised by the preservice teachers. Rather than using mathematical properties to describe the validity of Corwin’s invented algorithm, a majority of them relied on procedural and memorized explanations. About 31% of the preservice teachers demonstrated some degree of conceptual understanding of mathematical properties. Preservice teachers also made personal connections to the case report, described Corwin using superlative adjectives, and were critical of her teacher.     

Students’ use of technological features while solving a mathematics problem

The design of technology tools has the potential to dramatically influence how students interact with tools, and these interactions, in turn, may influence students’ mathematical problem solving. To better understand these interactions, we analyzed eighth grade students’ problem solving as they used a java applet designed to specifically accompany a well-structured problem. Within a problem solving session, students’ goal-directed activity was used to achieve different types of goals: analysis, planning, implementation, assessment, verification, and organization. As we examined students’ goals, we coded instances where their use of a technology feature was supportive or not supportive in helping them meet their goal. We categorized features of this applet into four subcategories: (1) features over which a user does not have any control and remain static, (2) dynamic features that allow users to directly manipulate objects, (3) dynamic features that update to provide feedback to users during problem solving, and (4) features that activate parts of the applet. Overall, most features were found to be supportive of students’ problem solving, and patterns in the type of features used to support various problem solving goals were identified.