Classroom sociomathematical norms for proof presentation in undergraduate in abstract algebra

This paper is a case study of the teaching of an undergraduate abstract algebra course with a particular focus on the manner in which the students presented proofs and the class engaged in a subsequent discussion of those proofs that included validating the work. This study describes norms for classroom work that include a set of norms that the presenter of a proof was responsible for enacting, including only using previously agreed upon results, as well as a separate set that the audience was to enact related to developing their understanding of the presented proof and validating the work. The study suggests that the students developed a sense of communal and individual responsibility for contributing to growing the body of mathematical knowledge known by the class, with an implied responsibility for knowing the already developed mathematics. Moreover, the behaviors that norms prompted the students to engage were those that literature suggests leads to increased comprehension of proofs.     

Cognitive trajectory of proof by contradiction for transition-to-proof students

History and research on proof by contradiction suggests proof by contradiction is difficult for students in a number of ways. Students’ comprehension of already-written proofs by contradiction is one such aspect that has received relatively little attention. Applying the cognitive lens of Action-Process-Object-Schema (APOS) Theory to proof by contradiction, we constructed and tested a cognitive model that describes how a student might construct the concept ‘proof by contradiction’ in an introduction to proof course. Data for this study was collected from students in a series of five teaching interventions focused on proof by contradiction. This paper will report on two participants as case studies to illustrate that our cognitive trajectory for proof by contradiction is a useful model for describing how students may come to understand the proof method.     

Are You Convinced? Middle‐Grade Students' Evaluations of Mathematical Arguments

Students learn norms of proving by observing teachers generating proofs, engaging in proving, and generalizing features of proofs deemed convincing by an authority, such as a textbook. Students at all grade levels have difficulties generating valid proof; however, little research exists on students' understandings about what makes a mathematical argument convincing prior to more formal instruction in methods of proof. This study investigated middle‐school students' (ages 12–14) evaluations of arguments for a statement in number theory. Students evaluated both an empirical and a general argument in an interview setting. The results show that students tend to prefer empirical arguments because examples enhance an argument's power to show that the statement is true. However, interview responses also reveal that a significant number of students find arguments to be most convincing when examples are supported with an explanation that “tells why” the statement is true. The analysis also examined the alignment of students' reasons for choosing arguments as more convincing along with the strategies they employ to make arguments more convincing. Overall, the findings show middle‐school students' conceptions about what makes arguments convincing are more sophisticated than their performance in generating arguments suggests.     

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.     

The student experience of mathematical proof at university level

While proofs are central to university level mathematics courses, research indicates that some students may complete their degrees with an incomplete picture of what constitutes a proof and how proofs are developed. The paper sets out to review what is known of the student experience of mathematical proof at university level. In particular, some evidence is presented of the conceptions of mathematical proof that recent mathematics graduates bring to their postgraduate course to teach high school mathematics. Such evidence suggests that while the least well-qualified graduates may have the poorest grasp of mathematical proof, the most highly qualified may not necessarily have the richest form of subject matter knowledge needed for the most effective teaching. Some indication of the likely causes of this incomplete student perspective on proof are presented.     

Integrating algebra and proof in high school mathematics: An exploratory study

Frequently, in the US students’ work with proofs is largely concentrated to the domain of high school geometry, thus providing students with a distorted image of what proof entails, which is at odds with the central role that proof plays in mathematics. Despite the centrality of proof in mathematics, there is a lack of studies addressing how to integrate proof into other mathematical domains. In this paper, we discuss a teaching experiment designed to integrate algebra and proof in the high school curriculum. Algebraic proof was envisioned as the vehicle that would provide high school students the opportunity to learn not only about proof in a context other than geometry, but also about aspects of algebra. Results from the experiment indicate that students meaningfully learned about aspects of both algebra and proof in that they produced algebraic proofs involving multiple variables, based on conjectures they themselves generated.     

Mathematics Majors' Perceptions of Conviction,Validity, and Proof

In this paper, 28 mathematics majors who completed a transition-to-proof course were given 10 mathematical arguments. For each argument, they were asked to judge how convincing they found the argument and whether they thought the argument constituted a mathematical proof. The key findings from this data were (a) most participants did not find the empirical argument in the study to be convincing or to meet the standards of proof, (b) the majority of participants found a diagrammatic argument to be both convincing and a proof, (c) participants evaluated deductive arguments not by their form but by their content, but (d) participants often judged invalid deductive arguments to be convincing proofs because they did not recognize their logical flaws. These findings suggest improving undergraduates' comprehension of mathematical arguments does not depend on making undergraduates aware of the limitations of empirical arguments but instead on improving the ways in which they process the arguments that they read.     

What do mathematicians mean by proof? A comparative-judgement study of students’ and mathematicians’ views

We present a study in which mathematicians and undergraduate students were asked to explain in writing what mathematicians mean by proof. The 175 responses were evaluated using comparative judgement: mathematicians compared pairs of responses and their judgements were used to construct a scaled rank order. We provide evidence establishing the reliability, divergent validity and content validity of this approach to investigating individuals’ written conceptions of mathematical proof. In doing so, we compare the quality of student and mathematician responses and identify which features the judges collectively valued. Substantively, our findings reveal that despite the variety of views in the literature, mathematicians broadly agree on what people should say when asked what mathematicians mean by proof. Methodologically, we provide evidence that comparative judgement could have an important role to play in investigating conceptions of mathematical ideas, and conjecture that similar methods could be productive in evaluating individuals’ more general (mathematical) beliefs.     

Investigating undergraduate students’ proof schemes and perspectives about combinatorial proof

Combinatorics is an area of mathematics with accessible, rich problems and applications in a variety of fields. Combinatorial proof is an important topic within combinatorics that has received relatively little attention within the mathematics education community, and there is much to investigate about how students reason about and engage with combinatorial proof. In this paper, we use Harel and Sowder’s (1998) proof schemes to investigate ways that students may characterize combinatorial proofs as different from other types of proof. We gave five upper-division mathematics students combinatorial-proof tasks and asked them to reflect on their activity and combinatorial proof more generally. We found that the students used several of Harel and Sowder’s proof schemes to characterize combinatorial proof, and we discuss whether and how other proof schemes may emerge for students engaging in combinatorial proof. We conclude by discussing implications and avenues for future research.     

Explication as a lens for the formalization of mathematical theory through guided reinvention

Realistic Mathematics Education supports students’ formalization of their mathematical activity through guided reinvention. To operationalize “formalization” in a proof-oriented instructional context, I adapt Sjogren's (2010) claim that formal proof explicates (Carnap, 1950) informal proof. Explication means replacing unscientific or informal concepts with scientific ones. I use Carnap's criteria for successful explication – similarity, exactness, and fruitfulness – to demonstrate how the elements of mathematical theory – definitions, axioms, theorems, proofs – can each explicate their less formal correlates. This lens supports an express goal of the instructional project, which is to help students coordinate semantic (informal) and syntactic (formal) mathematical activity. I demonstrate the analytical value of the explication lens by applying it to examples of students’ mathematical activity drawn from a design experiment in undergraduate, neutral axiomatic geometry. I analyze the chains of meanings (Thompson, 2013) that emerged when formal elements were presented readymade alongside those emerging from guided reinvention.     

A Teacher's Conception of Communication in Geometry Proofs

Mathematical proof has many purposes, one of which is communication of the reasoning behind a mathematical insight. Research on teachers' views of the role that proof plays as mathematical communication has been limited. This study describes how one teacher conceptualized proof communication during two units on proof (coordinate geometry proofs and Euclidean proofs). Based on classroom observations, the teacher's conceptualization of communication in written proofs is recorded in four categories: audience, clarity, organization, and structure. The results indicate differences within all four categories in the way the idea of communication is discussed by the teacher. Implications for future studies include attention to teachers' beliefs about learning mathematics in the process of understanding teachers' conceptions of proof as a means of mathematical communication.     

Semantic contamination and mathematical proof: Can a non-proof prove?

The way words are used in natural language can influence how the same words are understood by students in formal educational contexts. Here we argue that this so-called semantic contamination effect plays a role in determining how students engage with mathematical proof, a fundamental aspect of learning mathematics. Analyses of responses to argument evaluation tasks suggest that students may hold two different and contradictory conceptions of proof: one related to conviction, and one to validity. We demonstrate that these two conceptions can be preferentially elicited by making apparently irrelevant linguistic changes to task instructions. After analyzing the occurrence of “proof” and “prove” in natural language, we report two experiments that suggest that the noun form privileges evaluations related to validity, and that the verb form privileges evaluations related to conviction. In short, we show that (what is judged to be) a non-proof can sometimes (be judged to) prove.     

Proof validation in real analysis: Inferring and checking warrants

In the study reported here, we investigate the skills needed to validate a proof in real analysis, i.e., to determine whether a proof is valid. We first argue that when one is validating a proof, it is not sufficient to make certain that each statement in the argument is true. One must also check that there is good reason to believe that each statement follows from the preceding statements or from other accepted knowledge, i.e., that there is a valid warrant for making that statement in the context of this argument. We then report an exploratory study in which we investigated the behavior of 13 undergraduates when they were asked to determine whether or not a particular flawed mathematical argument is a valid mathematical proof. The last line of this purported proof was true, but did not follow legitimately from the earlier assertions in the proof. Our findings were that only six of these undergraduates recognized that this argument was invalid and only two did so for legitimate mathematical reasons. On a more positive note, when asked to consider whether the last line of the proof followed from previous assertions, a total of 10 students concluded that the statement did not and rejected the proof as invalid.     

Validating proofs and counterexamples across content domains: Practices of importance for mathematics majors

Validating proofs and counterexamples across content domains is considered vital practices for undergraduate students to advance their mathematical reasoning and knowledge. To date, not enough is known about the ways mathematics majors determine the validity of arguments in the domains of algebra, analysis, geometry, and number theory—the domains that are central to many mathematics courses. This study reported how 16 mathematics majors, including eight specializing in secondary mathematics education, who had completed more proof-based courses than transition-to-proof classes evaluated various arguments. The results suggest that the students use one of the following strategies in proof and counterexample validation: (1) examination of the argument's structure and (2) line-by-line checking with informal deductive reasoning, example-based reasoning, experience-based reasoning, and informal deductive and example-based reasoning. Most students tended to examine all steps of the argument with informal deductive reasoning across various tasks, suggesting that this approach might be problem dependent. Even though all participating students had taken more proof-related mathematics courses, it is surprising that many of them did not recognize global-structure or line-by-line content-based flaws presented in the argument.     

Undergraduate mathematics majors’ writing performance producing proofs and counterexamples about continuous functions

In advanced mathematical thinking, proving and refuting are crucial abilities to demonstrate whether and why a proposition is true or false. Learning proofs and counterexamples within the domain of continuous functions is important because students encounter continuous functions in many mathematics courses. Recently, a growing number of studies have provided evidence that students have difficulty with mathematical proofs. Few of these research studies, however, have focused on undergraduates’ abilities to produce proofs and counterexamples in the domain of continuous functions. The goal of this study is to contribute to research on student productions of proofs and counterexamples and to identify their abilities and mathematical understandings. The findings suggest more attention should be paid to teaching and learning proofs and counterexamples, as participants showed difficulty in writing these statements. More importantly, the analysis provides insight into the design of curriculum and instruction that may improve undergraduates’ learning in advanced mathematics courses.     

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.     

Possible Student Justification of Proofs

The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics calls for an increased emphasis on proof and reasoning in school mathematics curricula. Given such an emphasis, mathematics teachers must be prepared to structure curricular experiences so that students develop an appreciation for both the value of proof and for those strategies that will assist them in developing proving skills. Such an outcome is more likely when the teacher feels secure in his/her own understanding of the concept of “mathematical proof” and understands the ways in which students progress as they take on increasingly more complex mathematical justifications. In this article, a model of mathematical proof, based on Balacheff's Taxonomy of Mathematical Proof, outlining the levels through which students might progress as they develop proving skills is discussed. Specifically, examples of the various ways in which students operating at different levels of skill sophistication could approach three different mathematical proof tasks are presented. By considering proofs under this model, teachers are apt to gain a better understanding of each student's entry skill level and so effectively guide him/her toward successively more sophisticated skill development.     

Counter-examples for refinement of conjectures and proofs in primary school mathematics

The purpose of this study is to explore how primary school students reexamine their conjectures and proofs when they confront counter-examples to the conjectures they have proved. In the case study, a pair of Japanese fifth graders thought that they had proved their primitive conjecture with manipulative objects (that is, they constructed an action proof), and then the author presented a counter-example to them. Confronting the counter-example functioned as a driving force for them to refine their conjectures and proofs. They understood the reason why their conjecture was false through their analysis of its proof and therefore could modify their primitive conjecture. They also identified the part of the proof which was applicable to the counter-example. This identification and their action proof were essential for their invention of a more comprehensive conjecture.