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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

A sense-making approach to proof: Strategies of students in traditional and problem-based number theory courses

This paper reports the results of an exploratory study of the perceptions of and approaches to mathematical proof of undergraduates enrolled in lecture-based and problem-based “transition to proof” courses. While the students in the lecture-based course demonstrated conceptions of proof that reflect those reported in the research literature as insufficient and typical of undergraduates, the students in the problem-based course were found to hold conceptions of and approach the construction of proofs in ways that demonstrated efforts to make sense of mathematical ideas. This sense-making manifested itself in the ways in which students employed initial strategies, notation, prior knowledge and experiences, and concrete examples in the proof construction process. These differences were also seen when students were asked to determine the validity of completed proofs. These results suggest that such a problem-based course may provide opportunities for students to develop conceptions of proof that are more meaningful and robust than does a traditional lecture-based course.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Using dynamic geometry to explore non-traditional theorems

The purpose of this article is to provide examples of ‘non-traditional’ theorems that can be explored in a dynamic geometry environment by university and high school students. These theorems were encountered in the dynamic geometry environment. The author believes that teachers can ask their students to construct proofs for these theorems. The Appendix contains proof outlines for each theorem.     

Authority and whole-class proving in high school geometry: The case of Ms. Finley

Students’ experiences with proving in schools often lead them to see proof as a static product rather than a negotiated process that can help students justify and make sense of mathematical ideas. We investigated how authority manifested in whole-class proving episodes within Ms. Finley’s high school geometry classroom. We designed a coding scheme that helped us identify the proving actions and interactions that occurred during whole-class proving and how Ms. Finley and her students contributed to those processes. By considering the authority over proof initiation, proof construction, and proof validation, the episodes illustrate how whole-class proving interactions might relate to students’ potential development (or maintenance) of authoritative proof schemes. In particular, the authority of the teacher and textbook limited students’ opportunities to engage collectively in proving and sometimes allowed invalid arguments to be accepted in the public discourse. We offer suggestions for research and practice with respect to authority and proof instruction.     

Rethinking the discovery function of proof within the context of proofs and refutations

Proof and proving are important components of school mathematics and have multiple functions in mathematical practice. Among these functions of proof, this paper focuses on the discovery function that refers to invention of a new statement or conjecture by reflecting on or utilizing a constructed proof. Based on two cases in which eighth and ninth graders engaged in proofs and refutations, we demonstrate that facing a counterexample of a primitive statement can become a starting point of students’ activity for discovery, and that a proof of the primitive statement can function as a useful tool for inventing a new conjecture that holds for the counterexample. An implication for developing tasks by which students can experience this discovery function is mentioned.     

The Isis problem as an experimental probe and teaching resource

The Isis problem, which has a link with the Isis cult of ancient Egypt, asks: “Find which rectangles with sides of integral length (in some unit) have area and perimeter (numerically) equal, and prove the result.” Since the solution requires minimal technical mathematics, the problem is accessible to a wide range of students. Further, it is notable for the variety of proofs (empirically grounded, algebraic, geometrical) using different forms of argument, and their associated representations, and it provides an instrument for probing students’ ideas about proof, and the interplay between routine and adaptive expertise. A group of 39 Flemish pre-service mathematics teachers was confronted with the Isis problem. More specifically, we first asked them to solve the problem and to look for more than one solution. Second, we invited them to study five given contrasting proofs and to rank these proofs from best to worst. The results highlight a preference of many students for algebraic proofs as well as their rejection of experimentation. The potential of the problem as a teaching tool is outlined.     

Schülerprobleme beim Lösen von geometrischen Beweisaufgaben —eine Interviewstudie—

In this article we report on an interview study involving ten grade 8 students. These interviews served as a qualitative supplement for a large-scale quantitative study on proof and argumentation (N=659). During videotaped interviews the students were asked to solve geometrical proof problems. The results indicate that students’ difficulties with proof and logical argumentation may be explained by insufficient knowledge of facts, deficits in their methodological knoledge about mathematical proofs, and a lack of knowledge with respect to developing and implementing a proof strategy. Low-achieving students show difficulties with respect to all these three aspects, whereas high-achieving students’ difficulties are mainly based on deficits of developing an adequate and correct proof strategy.