International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education

International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education Indexed in ESCI
Investigating Students’ Proof Reasoning: Analyzing Students’ Oral Proof Explanations and their Written Proofs in High School Geometry
APA
In-text citation: (Winer & Battista, 2022)
Reference: Winer, M. L., & Battista, M. T. (2022). Investigating Students’ Proof Reasoning: Analyzing Students’ Oral Proof Explanations and their Written Proofs in High School Geometry. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 17(2), em0677. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11713
AMA
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Winer ML, Battista MT. Investigating Students’ Proof Reasoning: Analyzing Students’ Oral Proof Explanations and their Written Proofs in High School Geometry. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2022;17(2), em0677. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11713
Chicago
In-text citation: (Winer and Battista, 2022)
Reference: Winer, Michael L., and Michael T. Battista. "Investigating Students’ Proof Reasoning: Analyzing Students’ Oral Proof Explanations and their Written Proofs in High School Geometry". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 2022 17 no. 2 (2022): em0677. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11713
Harvard
In-text citation: (Winer and Battista, 2022)
Reference: Winer, M. L., and Battista, M. T. (2022). Investigating Students’ Proof Reasoning: Analyzing Students’ Oral Proof Explanations and their Written Proofs in High School Geometry. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 17(2), em0677. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11713
MLA
In-text citation: (Winer and Battista, 2022)
Reference: Winer, Michael L. et al. "Investigating Students’ Proof Reasoning: Analyzing Students’ Oral Proof Explanations and their Written Proofs in High School Geometry". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 17, no. 2, 2022, em0677. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11713
Vancouver
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Winer ML, Battista MT. Investigating Students’ Proof Reasoning: Analyzing Students’ Oral Proof Explanations and their Written Proofs in High School Geometry. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2022;17(2):em0677. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11713

Abstract

Constructing formal geometry proofs in is an important topic in the mathematics curriculum. But students’ difficulties with proof are well documented. This article focuses on proofs that use triangle congruence postulates in US high school geometry. Examining students’ proof reasoning in one-on-one task-based interviews, we analyzed students’ oral planning/explanations and two-column written proofs. We found that much of the reasoning students conveyed in their oral planning/explanations was not incorporated into their written proofs, resulting in formalization and fatal logical reasoning gaps. We found that the majority of the students utilized sound reasoning in their oral explanations, but struggled to capture that reasoning in their written two-column proofs. We link our findings to learning progression research, further elaborating the van Hiele levels. Our research contributes to understanding the learning and teaching of proof and to the ongoing controversy over the use of two-column proofs in the high school geometry curriculum.

Disclosures

Declaration of Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest is declared by author(s).

Data sharing statement: Data supporting the findings and conclusions are available upon request from the corresponding author(s).

References

  • Anderson, J. R. (1989). The analogical origins of errors in problem solving. In D. Klahr, & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 343-371). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • Anderson, J. R., Boyle, C. F., & Reiser, B. J. (1985). Intelligent tutoring systems. Science, 228(4698), 456-462. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.228.4698.456
  • Anderson, J. R., Greeno, J. G., Kline, P. J., & Neves, D. M. (1981). Acquisition of problem-solving skill. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 191-230). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • Battista, M. T. (1999). Fifth graders' enumeration of cubes in 3D arrays: Conceptual progress in an inquiry-based classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(4), 417-448.
  • Battista, M. T. (2001). How do children learn mathematics? research and reform in mathematics education. In T. Loveless (Ed.), The great curriculum debate: How should we teach reading and math? (pp. 42-84). Brookings Press.
  • Battista, M. T. (2007). The development of geometric and spatial thinking. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 843-908). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  • Battista, M. T. (2008). Development of the shape makers geometry microworld. Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics: Volume 2 cases and perspectives (pp. 131-156).
  • Battista, M. T. (2011). Conceptualizations and issues related to learning progressions, learning trajectories, and levels of sophistication. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 8(3), 507-570.
  • Battista, M. T. (2012). Cognition-based assessment & teaching of geometric shapes: Building on students' reasoning. Heinemann.
  • Battista, M. T. (2019). Using learning progressions to design and assess geometry curricula [Presentation]. NCTM Research Conference, San Diego, April 2019.
  • Battista, M. T., & Clements, D. H. (1995). Geometry and proof. Mathematics Teacher, 88(1), 48-54.
  • Battista, M. T., Frazee, L. M., & Winer, M. L. (2018) Analyzing the relation between spatial and geometric reasoning for elementary and middle school students. In K. S. Mix & M. T. Battista (Eds.), Visualizing mathematics (pp. 195-228). Springer.
  • Beman, W. W., & Smith, D. E. (1899). New plane and solid geometry. Ginn.
  • Birkhoff, G., & Beatley, R. (1940). Basic geometry. AMS Chelsea Publishing.
  • Borrow, C. V. A. (2000). An investigation of the development of 6th grade students’ geometric reasoning and conceptualizations of geometric polygons in a computer microworld [Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University].
  • Boyle, J. D. (2012). A study of prospective secondary mathematics teachers’ evolving understanding of reasoning-and-proving [Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh].
  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Research Council.
  • Campbell, T. G., King, S., & Zelkowski, J. (2021). 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
  • Chen, C., & Herbst, P. (2013). The interplay among gestures, discourse, and diagrams in students’ geometrical reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(2), 285-307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9454-2
  • Cirillo, M., & Herbst, P. G. (2012). Moving toward more authentic proof practices in geometry. Mathematics Educator, 21(2), 11-33.
  • Cirillo, M., & Hummer, J. (2021). Competencies and behaviors observed when students solve geometry proof problems: An interview study with smartpen technology. ZDM-Mathematics Education, 53(4), 861-875. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01221-w
  • Cirillo, M., & Hummer, J., (2019). Addressing misconceptions in secondary geometry. The Mathematics Teacher, 35(6), 410-417. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteacher.112.6.0410
  • Cirillo, M., & May, H. (2020). Decomposing proof in secondary classrooms: A promising intervention for school geometry. In The 14th International Congress on Mathematical Education. Shanghai, China.
  • Cirillo, M., Griffin, C., Seiwell, A., & Hummer, J. (2021). What do you believe is true? A routine for proving theorems in secondary geometry. In Proceedings of the 43rd Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Groups for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Philadelphia, PA, USA.
  • Clement, J. (2000). Analysis of clinical interviews: Foundations and model viability. In A. E. Kelly, & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 547-589). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. T. (1992). Geometry and spatial reasoning. Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning, 420-464.
  • Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officer.
  • De Villiers, M. (2004). Using dynamic geometry to expand mathematics teachers’ understanding of proof. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 35(5), 703-724. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739042000232556
  • Dreyfus, T., & Hadus, N. (1987). Euclid may stay-and even be taught. In M. M. Lindquist, & A. P. Shulte (Eds.), Learning and teaching geometry, K-12 (pp. 47-58). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  • Duval, R. (2007). Cognitive functioning and the understanding of mathematical processes of proof. In P. Boero (Ed.), Theorems in schools: From history, epistemology and cognition to classroom practice (pp. 137-161). Sense Publishing.
  • Faulkner, V., Walkowiak, T., Cain, C., & Lee, C. (2016). Equality matters: The critical implications of precisely defining equality. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 21(4), 11-15.
  • Gilbertson, N. J., Otten, S., Males, L. M., & Clark, D. L. (2013). Not all opportunities to prove are the same. Mathematics Teacher, 107(2), 138-142. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteacher.107.2.0138
  • Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. The Sociology Press.
  • Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative inquiry. Aldine Transaction. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014
  • Goldin, G. A. (2000). A scientific perspective on structured, task-based interviews in mathematics education research. In A. E. Kelly, & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 517-545). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • Hanna, G. (1989). More than formal proof. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9(1), 20-23.
  • 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. 877-905). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1465-0_27
  • Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (1998). Students’ proof schemes: Results from exploratory studies. In A. H. Schoenfeld, J. Kaput, & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education III (pp. 234-282). Mathematical Association. https://doi.org/10.1090/cbmath/007/07
  • Heinze, A., Cheng, Y., Ufer, S., Lin, F., & Reiss, K. (2008). Strategies to foster students’ competencies in constructing multi-steps geometric proofs: Teaching experiments in taiwan and germany. ZDM, 40(3), 443-453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-008-0092-1
  • 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(3), 283-312. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020264906740
  • Herbst, P., & 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
  • Herbst, P., & Miyakawa, T. (2008). When, how, and why prove theorems? A methodology for studying the perspective of geometry teachers. ZDM, 40(3), 469-486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-008-0082-3
  • Kelley, G. D. (2013). Approaches to proof in geometry textbooks: Comparing texts from the 1980s and 2000s [Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park].
  • Knuth, E. J. (2002). Teachers’ conceptions of proof in the context of secondary school mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5(1), 61-88. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013838713648
  • Koedinger, K. R., & Anderson, J. R. (1990). Abstract planning and perceptual chunks: Elements of expertise in geometry. Cognitive Science, 14(4), 511-550. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1404_2
  • Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery (I. Lakatos, J. Worrall, & E. Zahar [Eds.]). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139171472
  • Larson, R., Boswell, L., Kanold, T. D., & Stiff, L. (2008). Geometry. McDougal Littell.
  • Mariotti, M. A. (2006). Proof and proving in mathematics education. In A. Guttiérrez, & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and future (pp. 173-204). Sense Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087901127_008
  • Martin, T. S., & McCrone, S. M. (2003). Classroom factors related to geometric proof construction ability. The Mathematics Educator, 7(1), 18-31.
  • McCrone, S. M. Martin, T. S.; Dindyal, J., & Wallace, M. L. (2002). An investigation of classroom factors that influence proof construction ability. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting [of the] North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1-4, p. 13). Athens, GA, USA.
  • McCrone, S. M. S., & Martin, T. S. (2004). Assessing high school students’ understanding of geometric proof. Canadian Journal of Math, Science & Technology Education, 4(2), 223-242. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150409556607
  • McCrone, S. M., & Martin, T. S. (2010). Formal proof in high school geometry: Student perceptions of structure, validity, and purpose. Teaching and learning proof across the grades, 204-221. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203882009-12
  • McCrone, S. S., Martin, T. S., Dindyal, J., & Wallace, M. L. (2002). An investigation of classroom factors that influence proof construction ability. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting [of the] North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1-4, p. 13). Athens, GA, USA.
  • Movshovitz-Hadar, N. (2001). Proof. In L. Grinstein, & S. I. Lipsey (Eds.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 585-591). Routledge.
  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  • National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Committee on the foundations of assessment. In J. W. Pellegrino, N. Chudowsky, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Board on testing and assessment, center for education. Division of behavioral and social sciences and education. National Academies Press.
  • National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. committee on science learning, kindergarten through eighth grade. National Academies Press.
  • Pair, J., Strachota, S., & Singh, R. (2021). The academic community’s perceptions of the two-column proof. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 18(1), 210-238. https://doi.org/10.54870/1551-3440.1521
  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (1988). When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters of ‘well-taught’ mathematics courses. Educational Psychologist, 23(2), 145-166. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2302_5
  • Senk, S. L. (1985). How well do students write geometry proofs? The Mathematics Teacher, 78(6), 448-456. https://doi.org/10.5951/MT.78.6.0448
  • Senk, S. L. (1989). Van Hiele levels and achievement in writing geometry proofs. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(3), 309-321. https://doi.org/10.2307/749519
  • Shaughnessy, J. M., & Burger, W. F. (1985). Spadework prior to deduction in geometry. The Mathematics Teacher, 78(6), 419-428. https://doi.org/10.5951/MT.78.6.0419
  • Sinclair, N., Cirillo, M., & de Villiers, M. (2017). The learning and teaching of geometry. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 457-488). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  • Smith, C. L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. W., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of research on children’s learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic-molecular theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 4(1-2), 1-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2006.9678570
  • Soto-Johnson, H., & Fuller, E. (2012). Assessing proofs via oral interviews. Investigations in Mathematics Learning, 4(3), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/24727466.2012.11790313
  • Steffe, L., & Thompson, P. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In A. E. Kelly, & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 267-306). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • Stylianides, A. J. (2007). Proof and proving in school mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(3), 289-321.
  • 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, G. J., Stylianides, A. J., & Weber, K. (2017). Research on the teaching and learning of proof: Taking stock and moving forward. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  • Sztajn, P., Confrey, J., Wilson, P. H., & Edgington, C. (2012). Learning trajectory based instruction: Toward a theory of teaching. Educational Researcher, 41(5), 147-156. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12442801
  • Weiss, M., Herbst, P., & Chen, C. (2009). Teachers’ perspectives on “authentic mathematics” and the two-column proof form. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(3), 275-293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9144-2
  • Wertheimer, R. (1990). The geometry proof tutor: An “intelligent” computer-based tutor in the classroom. The Mathematics Teacher, 83(4), 308-317. https://doi.org/10.5951/MT.83.4.0308
  • Wu, H. H. (1996). The role of Euclidean geometry in high school. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15(3), 221-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(96)90002-4
  • Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458-477. https://doi.org/10.2307/749877

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.