International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education

International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education Indexed in ESCI
A multi-faceted framework for identifying students’ understanding of the generality requirement of proof
APA
In-text citation: (Conner, 2022)
Reference: Conner, K. A. (2022). A multi-faceted framework for identifying students’ understanding of the generality requirement of proof. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 17(4), em0702. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/12270
AMA
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Conner KA. A multi-faceted framework for identifying students’ understanding of the generality requirement of proof. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2022;17(4), em0702. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/12270
Chicago
In-text citation: (Conner, 2022)
Reference: Conner, Kimberly A.. "A multi-faceted framework for identifying students’ understanding of the generality requirement of proof". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 2022 17 no. 4 (2022): em0702. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/12270
Harvard
In-text citation: (Conner, 2022)
Reference: Conner, K. A. (2022). A multi-faceted framework for identifying students’ understanding of the generality requirement of proof. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 17(4), em0702. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/12270
MLA
In-text citation: (Conner, 2022)
Reference: Conner, Kimberly A. "A multi-faceted framework for identifying students’ understanding of the generality requirement of proof". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 17, no. 4, 2022, em0702. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/12270
Vancouver
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Conner KA. A multi-faceted framework for identifying students’ understanding of the generality requirement of proof. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2022;17(4):em0702. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/12270

Abstract

The generality requirement, or the requirement that a proof must demonstrate a claim to be true for all cases within its domain, represents one of the most important, yet challenging aspects of proof for students to understand. This article presents a multi-faceted framework for identifying aspects of students’ work that have the potential to provide insight into their understanding of the generality requirement. I use a single student’s work across different snapshots in time to illustrate her understanding of the generality requirement as evidenced by the justifications, examples, variables, and diagrams present within her written and oral work when proving mathematical claims and her rationales when evaluating whether provided arguments were proofs. Analysis of the student’s work across multiple categories at a single moment in time shows that students can exhibit understanding of the generality requirement for some categories while demonstrating limited or unclear evidence of understanding for others. By looking across the framework dimensions and types of tasks, researchers can identify patterns in student understanding and specific aspects that could be addressed through future instruction.

References

  • Aricha-Metzer, I., & Zaslavsky, O. (2019). The nature of students’ productive and non-productive example-use for proving. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 53, 304-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.09.002
  • Bieda, K. N., & Lepak, J. (2014). Are you convinced? Middle-grade students’ evaluations of mathematical arguments. School Science and Mathematics, 114(4), 166-177. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12066
  • Boyle, J. D., Bleiler, S. K., Yee, S. P., & Ko, Y.-Y. (2015). Transforming perceptions of proof: A four-part instructional sequence. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 4(1), 32-70. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteaceduc.4.1.0032
  • Buchbinder, O., & Zaslavsky, O. (2008). Uncertainty: A driving force in creating a need for proving. International Commission on Mathematical Instruction. http://www.orlybuchbinder.com/publications/ICMI_19_Buchbinder_Zaslavsky_Uncertainty%20as%20a%20driving%20force-final.pdf
  • Campbell, T. G., King, S., & Zelkowski, J. (2020). Comparing middle grade students’ oral and written arguments. Research in Mathematics Education, 23(1), 21-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2020.1722960
  • Chazan, D. (1993). High school geometry students’ justification for their views of empirical evidence and mathematical proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24(4), 359-387. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01273371
  • Cirillo, M. (2011). “I’m like the sherpa guide”: On learning to teach proof in school mathematics. In B. Ubuz (Ed.), Proceedings of the 35th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 241-248). PME.
  • Cirillo, M. (2017). Engaging students with non-routine geometry proof tasks. In P. Herbst, U. Cheah, P. Richard, & K. Jones (Eds.), International perspectives on the teaching and learning of geometry in secondary schools (pp. 283-300). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77476-3_16
  • Cirillo, M., & Herbst, P. G. (2011). Moving toward more authentic proof practices in geometry. The Mathematics Educator, 21(2), 11-33. http://math.coe.uga.edu/tme/issues/v21n2/v21n2_Cirillo&Herbst_Abs.html
  • Cobb, P., & Steffe, L. P. (1983). The constructivist researcher as teacher and model builder. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14(2), 82-94. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.14.2.0083
  • Conner, K. A., & Otten, S. (2021). General proof tasks provide opportunities for varied forms of reasoning about the domain of mathematical claims. Electronic Journal for Research in Science & Mathematics Education, 25(4), 42-70.
  • Dawkins, P. C., & Karunakaran, S. S. (2016). Why research on proof-oriented mathematical behavior should attend to the role of particular mathematical content. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 44, 65-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2016.10.003
  • de Villiers, M. (1990). The role and function of proof in Mathematics. Pythagoras, 24, 17-23.
  • Ellis, A. B., Bieda, K., & Knuth, E. J. (2012). Developing essential understanding of proof and proving for teaching mathematics in grades 9-12. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  • Ellis, A. B., Ozgur, Z., Vinsonhaler, R., Dogan, M. F., Carolan, T., Lockwood, E., Lynch, A., Sabouri, P., Knuth, E., & Zaslavsky, O. (2019). Student thinking with examples: The criteria-affordances-purposes-strategies framework. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 53, 263-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.06.003
  • Ely, R., & Adams, A. E. (2012). Unknown, placeholder, or variable: What is x? Mathematics Education Research Journal, 24(1), 19-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-011-0029-9
  • Fischbein, E. (1982). Intuition and proof. For the Learning of Mathematics, 3(3), 9-18.
  • Fischbein, E. (1993). The theory of figural concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24(2), 139-162. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01273689
  • Hanna, G. (2000). Proof, explanation and exploration: An overview. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 5-23. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012737223465
  • Hanna, G., & Jahnke, H. N. (1996). Proof and proving. In A. J. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education (pp. 877-908). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1465-0_27
  • Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (2000). A study of proof conceptions in algebra. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(4), 396-428. https://doi.org/10.2307/749651
  • Herbst, P. G. (2002). Establishing a custom of proving in American school geometry: Evolution of the two-column proof in the early twentieth century. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 283-312. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020264906740
  • Herbst, P. G., & Brach, C. (2006). Proving and doing proofs in high school geometry classes: What is it that is going on for students? Cognition and Instruction, 24(1), 73-122. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2401_2
  • Hoyles, C., & Healy, L. (2000). Curriculum change and geometrical reasoning. In P. Boero (Ed.), Theorems in school: From history, epistemology and cognition to classroom practice (pp. 81–115). Sense Publishers.
  • Knuth, E. J., & Sutherland, J. (2004). Student understanding of generality. In D. E. McDougall, & J. A. Ross (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 562-568). OISE/UT.
  • Knuth, E., Choppin, J., & Bieda, K. (2009). Middle school students’ production of mathematical justifications. In D. A. Stylianou, M. L. Blanton, & E. J. Knuth (Eds.), Teaching and learning proof across the grades: A K-16 perspective (pp. 153-170). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203882009-9
  • Knuth, E., Zaslavsky, O., & Ellis, A. B. (2019). The role and use of examples in learning to prove. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 53, 256-262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.06.002
  • Kobiela, M., & Lehrer, R. (2015). The codevelopment of mathematical concepts and the practice of defining. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 46(4), 423-454. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.46.4.0423
  • Küchemann, D. (1978). Children’s understanding of numerical variables. Mathematics in School, 7(4), 23-26. https://doi.org/10.2307/30213397
  • Küchemann, D. E. (1981). Algebra. In K. M. Hart (Ed.), Children’s understanding of mathematics: 11-16 (pp. 102-119). John Murray.
  • Laborde, C. (1995). The hidden role of diagrams in students’ construction of meaning in geometry. In J. Kilpatrick, C. Hoyles, O. Skovsmose, & P. Valero (Eds.), Meaning in mathematics education (pp. 159-179). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-24040-3_11
  • Martin, T., McCrone, S., Bower, M., & Dindyal, J. (2005). The interplay of teacher and student actions in the teaching and learning of geometric proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60(1), 95-124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-005-6698-0
  • Martinez, M. V., & Superfine, A. C. (2012). Integrating algebra and proof in high school: Students’ work with multiple variables and a single parameter in a proof context. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 14(2), 120-148. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2012.657956
  • Mason, J. (1989). Mathematical abstraction as the result of a delicate shift of attention. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9(2), 2-8.
  • Mason, J. (2019). Relationships between proof and examples: Comments arising from the papers in this issue. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 53, 339-347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.07.005
  • Mason, J., & Pimm, D. (1984). Generic examples: Seeing the general in the particular. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15(3), 277-289. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00312078
  • Otten, S., Bleiler-Baxter, S. K., & Engledowl, C. (2017). Authority and whole-class proving in high school geometry: The case of Ms. Finley. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 46, 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.04.002
  • Otten, S., Gilbertson, N. J., Males, L. M., & Clark, D. L. (2014a). The mathematical nature of reasoning-and-proving opportunities in geometry textbooks. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 16(1), 51-79. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2014.857802
  • Otten, S., Males, L. M., & Gilbertson, N. J. (2014b). The introduction of proof in secondary geometry textbooks. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 107-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.08.006
  • Ozgur, Z., Ellis, A. B., Vinsonhaler, R., Dogan, M. F., & Knuth, E. (2019). From examples to proof: Purposes, strategies, and affordances of example use. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 53, 284-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.03.004
  • Philipp, R. (1992). The many uses of algebraic variables. The Mathematics Teacher, 85(7), 557-561. https://doi.org/10.5951/MT.85.7.0557
  • Roulston, K. (2010). Asking questions and individual interviews. In K. Roulston (Ed.), Reflective interviewing: A guide to theory and practice (pp. 9-32). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446288009.n2
  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (1989). Explorations of students’ mathematical beliefs and behavior. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(4), 338-355. https://doi.org/10.2307/749440
  • Schoenfeld, A., & Arcavi, A. (1988). On the meaning of variable. Mathematics Teacher, 81(6), 420-427. https://doi.org/10.5951/MT.81.6.0420
  • Senk, S. L. (1985). How well do students write geometry proofs? The Mathematics Teacher, 78(6), 448-456. https://doi.org/10.2307/27964580
  • Simon, M., Saldanha, L., McClintock, E., Akar, G. K., Watanabe, T., & Zembat, I. O. (2010). A developing approach to studying students’ learning through their mathematical activity. Cognition and Instruction, 28(1), 70-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000903430566
  • Sommerhoff, D., & Ufer, S. (2019). Acceptance criteria for validating mathematical proofs used by school students, university students, and mathematicians in the context of teaching. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 51(5), 717-730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01039-7
  • Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In R. Lesh & A. E. Kelly (Eds.), Research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 267-307). Erlbaum.
  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. SAGE.
  • Stylianides, A. J. (2007). Proof and proving in school mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(3), 289-321. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034869
  • Stylianides, A. J. (2019). Secondary students’ proof constructions in mathematics: The role of written versus oral mode of argument representation. Review of Education, 7(1), 156-182. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3157
  • Stylianides, A. J., & Stylianides, G. J. (2009a). Proof constructions and evaluations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(2), 237–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-009-9191-3
  • Stylianides, G. J., & Stylianides, A. J. (2009b). Facilitating the transition from empirical arguments to proof. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(3), 314-352. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.40.3.0314
  • Stylianides, G. J., & Stylianides, A. J. (2014). The role of instructional engineering in reducing the uncertainties of ambitious teaching. Cognition and Instruction, 32(4), 374-415. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2014.948682
  • Usiskin, Z. (1999). Conceptions of school algebra and uses of variables. In B. Moses (Ed.), Algebraic thinking, grades K-12: Readings from NCTM’s school-based journals and other publications (pp. 7-13). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  • Weber, K. (2002). Beyond proving and explaining: Proofs that justify the use of definitions and axiomatic structures and proofs that illustrate technique. For the Learning of Mathematics, 22, 14-17. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40248396
  • Weber, K., Lew, K., & Mejía-Ramos, J. P. (2020). Using expectancy value theory to account for individuals’ mathematical justifications. Cognition and Instruction, 38(1), 27-56. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2019.1636796
  • Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (applied social research methods). SAGE.
  • Yopp, D. A., & Ely, R. (2016). When does an argument use a generic example? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 91(1), 37-53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-015-9633-z

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.