International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education

International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education
Who Should Learn Proving and Why: An Examination of Secondary Mathematics Teachers’ Perspectives
APA
In-text citation: (Otten et al., 2021)
Reference: Otten, S., Wambua, M. M., & Govender, R. (2021). Who Should Learn Proving and Why: An Examination of Secondary Mathematics Teachers’ Perspectives. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 16(3), em0662. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11298
AMA
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Otten S, Wambua MM, Govender R. Who Should Learn Proving and Why: An Examination of Secondary Mathematics Teachers’ Perspectives. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2021;16(3), em0662. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11298
Chicago
In-text citation: (Otten et al., 2021)
Reference: Otten, Samuel, Mitchelle M Wambua, and Rajendran Govender. "Who Should Learn Proving and Why: An Examination of Secondary Mathematics Teachers’ Perspectives". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 2021 16 no. 3 (2021): em0662. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11298
Harvard
In-text citation: (Otten et al., 2021)
Reference: Otten, S., Wambua, M. M., and Govender, R. (2021). Who Should Learn Proving and Why: An Examination of Secondary Mathematics Teachers’ Perspectives. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 16(3), em0662. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11298
MLA
In-text citation: (Otten et al., 2021)
Reference: Otten, Samuel et al. "Who Should Learn Proving and Why: An Examination of Secondary Mathematics Teachers’ Perspectives". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 16, no. 3, 2021, em0662. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11298
Vancouver
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Otten S, Wambua MM, Govender R. Who Should Learn Proving and Why: An Examination of Secondary Mathematics Teachers’ Perspectives. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2021;16(3):em0662. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11298

Abstract

Reasoning-and-proving is a crucial part of students’ mathematical experiences in secondary school. There is scholarly debate, however, on the extent to which proving at the secondary level needs to be formal and whether all students should be held to disciplinary standards of rigor. In this study, we investigated the notion of “proof for all” from the perspective of secondary mathematics teachers. We analyzed, using the framework of practical rationality, the justifications teachers gave for whether or not all students should learn proof. Based on interviews with twenty-one secondary teachers from a socioeconomically-diverse set of schools, we found that teachers differ in their opinions of who should learn proving but they were similar in their feelings of obligation toward individual student learning; some teachers cited obligations to individual students as a justification for teaching proving to all students and others cited those obligations as a justification for not teaching proving to some students. We also share teachers’ perspective with regard to their obligations to the discipline, educational institutions, interpersonal dynamics among students, and the worldly relevance of mathematics education.

References

  • Baker, K., Jessup, N. A., Jacobs, V. R., Empson, S. B., & Case, J. (2020). Productive struggle in action. Mathematics Teacher: Learning and Teaching PK-12, 113(5), 361-367. https://doi.org/10.5951/mtlt.2019.0060
  • Battey, D. (2019, February). Building towards equity: Identifying and detailing mechanisms in undergraduate mathematics. Plenary presentation at the 22nd annual conference of the Special Interest Group of the Mathematical Association of America on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, Oklahoma City, OK.
  • Beswick, K. (2012). Teachers’ beliefs about school mathematics and mathematicians’ mathematics and their relationship to practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(1), 127-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9333-2
  • Bieda, K. N., Ji, X., Drwencke, J., & Picard, A. (2014). Reasoning-and-proving opportunities in elementary mathematics textbooks. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 71-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.06.005
  • Bleiler, S. K., Thompson, D. R., & Krajčevski, M. (2014). Providing written feedback on students’ mathematical arguments: Proof validations of prospective secondary mathematics teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 17(2), 105-127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-013-9248-1
  • 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, 32-70. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteaceduc.4.1.0032
  • Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics: Didactique des Mathematiques 19701990. Kluwer.
  • Conner, K. A. (2018). Developing secondary students’ understanding of the generality and purpose of proof [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Missouri.
  • de Villiers, M. D. (1995). An alternative introduction to proof in dynamic geometry. MicroMath, 11(12), 14-19.
  • de Villiers, M. D. (1999). Rethinking proof with the Geometer’s Sketchpad. Key Curriculum Press.
  • Department of Basic Education. (2011). National curriculum statement grades R–12. http://www.education.gov.za
  • Eliot, C., Harris, W. T., Angell, J. B., Tetlow, J., Taylor, J. M., Robinson, O. D., Baker, J., Jesse, R., McKenzie, J., & King, H. (1969). Report of the Committee of Ten to the National Education Association. In National Education Association, Report of the Committee on secondary school studies. Arno Press. (Original work published 1893).
  • Erickson, A., & Herbst, P. (2018). Will Teachers Create Opportunities for Discussion when Teaching Proof in a Geometry Classroom? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(1), 167-181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9764-4
  • Furinghetti, F., & Morselli, F. (2011). Beliefs and beyond: Hows and whys in the teaching of proof. ZDM Mathematics Education, 43(4), 587-599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-011-0316-7
  • Gutierrez, R. (2017). Living mathematx: Towards a vision for the future. In E. Galindo, & J. Newton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 2-26). Hoosier Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators.
  • Hanna, G. (1995). Challenges to the importance of proof. For the Learning of Mathematics, 15(3), 42-49. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40248188
  • Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (2007). Toward comprehensive perspectives on the learning and teaching of proof. In F. K. Lester, Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 805-842). Information Age Publishing.
  • 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., & Balacheff, N. (2009). Proving and knowing in public: The nature of proof in a classroom. In D. A. Stylianou, M. L. Blanton, & E. J. Knuth (Eds.), Teaching and learning proof across the grades: A K-16 Perspective (pp. 40-63). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203882009-3
  • Herbst, P., & Chazan, D. (2003). Exploring the practical rationality of mathematics teaching through conversations about videotaped episodes: The case of engaging students in proving. For the Learning of Mathematics, 23(1), 2-14.
  • Herbst, P., & Chazan, D. (2011). Research on practical rationality: Studying the justification of actions in mathematics teaching. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 8, 405-462.
  • Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In F. K. Lester, Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371-404). Information Age Publishing.
  • Inglis, M., & Attridge, N. (2017). Does mathematical study develop logical thinking? Testing the Theory of Formal Discipline. World Scientific. https://doi.org/10.1142/q0020
  • Kliebard, H. M., & Franklin, B. M. (2003). The ascendance of practical and vocational mathematics, 1893–1945: Academic mathematics under siege. In G. M. A. Stanic, & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), A history of school mathematics (pp. 399-440). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  • Knuth, E. J. (2002). Secondary school mathematics teachers’ conceptions of proof. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(5), 379-405. https://doi.org/10.2307/4149959
  • Ko, Y. Y. (2010). Mathematics teachers’ conceptions of proof: Implications for educational research. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 1109-1129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9235-2
  • Krpan, C. M., & Sahmbi, G. (2020). Argumentation is elementary: The case for teaching argumentation in elementary mathematics classrooms. In Mathematics (Education) in the Information Age (pp. 37-52). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59177-9_3
  • Lynch, M. F., & Salikhova, N. R. (2016). Teachers’ conceptions about the child’s developmental needs: A structural analysis. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 11(5), 1471-1479. https://www.iejme.com/download/teachers-conceptions-about-the-childs-developmental-needs-a-structural-analysis.pdf
  • Mariotti, M. A. (2006). Proof and proving in mathematics education. In Á. Gutiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and future (pp. 173-204). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087901127_008
  • Martin, D. B. (2003). Hidden assumptions and unaddressed questions in Mathematics for All rhetoric. The Mathematics Educator, 13(2), 7-21.
  • MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology). (2008). Course of study section 3 mathematics 9 (in Japanese; published in English in 2011). http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/micro_detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/04/11/1298356_4.pdf
  • Miyazaki, M., Fujita, T., & Jones, K. (2017). Students’ understanding of the structure of deductive proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 94(2), 223-239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9720-9
  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics.
  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2009). Focus in high school mathematics: Reasoning and sense making.
  • National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics.
  • Otten, S., Bleiler-Baxter, S. K., & Engledowl, C. (2017). Authority and whole-class proving in high school geometry: The case of Ms. Finley. The 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. (2014). The mathematical nature of reasoning-and-proving opportunities in geometry textbooks. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 16, 51-79. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2014.857802
  • Sanchez, W. B., Edenfield, K. W., Lischka, A. E., & Gammill, R. (2015). An emergent framework: Views of mathematical processes. School Science and Mathematics, 115, 88-99. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ssm.12103
  • Sears, R. (2018). The implications of a pacing guide on the development of students ability to prove in geometry. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 13(3), 171-185. https://doi.org/10.12973/iejme/3835
  • Secretariá de Educación Pública. (2014). Secundaria, programas de studio [Secondary, study programs]. https://www.gob.mx/sep/acciones-y-programas/secundaria-programas-de-estudio
  • Senk, S. L. (1985). How well do students write geometry proofs? Mathematics Teacher, 78, 448-456. https://doi.org/10.5951/mt.78.6.0448
  • Shongwe, B. (2020). Grade 11 students’ proof construction ability in relation to classroom resources. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 15(2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/6278
  • Skovsmose, O. (1998). Linking mathematics education and democracy: Citizenship, mathematical archaeology, mathemacy and deliberative interaction. ZDM Mathematics Education, 30(6), 195-203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-998-0010-6
  • Stanic, G.M.A. (1987). Mathematics education in the United States at the beginning of the twentieth century. In T. Popkewitz (Ed.), The formation of school subjects: The struggle for creating an American institution (pp. 135-175). Falmer.
  • Stylianides, G. J. (2008). An analytic framework of reasoning-and-proving. For the Learning of Mathematics, 28(1), 9-16.
  • Stylianides, G. J., Stylianides, A. J., & Weber, K. (2017). Research on the teaching and learning of proof: Taking stock and moving forward. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 237-266). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  • Tekkumru Kisa, M., & Stein, M. K. (2015). Learning to see teaching in new ways: A foundation for maintaining cognitive demand. American Educational Research Journal, 52(1), 105-136. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214549452
  • Warshauer, H. K. (2015). Productive struggle in middle school mathematics classrooms. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 18(4), 375-400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-014-9286-3
  • Webb, P., & Roberts, N. (Eds.). (2017). The pedagogy of mathematics in South Africa: Is there a unifying logic? MISTRA and Real African Publishers.
  • Webel, C., & Platt, D. (2015). The role of professional obligations in working to change one’s teaching practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 204-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.01.007
  • Weber, K. (2015). Episode 1519: Weber’s review of justification and proof [Podcast]. Math Ed Podcast. https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/mathed/episodes/2015-11-16T07_01_19-08_00
  • Zhao, W. (2020). Examining secondary teachers’ practical rationality of mathematical modeling [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.

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.