Advertisement

Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 68, Issue 3, pp 195–208 | Cite as

What makes a counterexample exemplary?

  • Rina ZazkisEmail author
  • Egan J. Chernoff
Article

Abstract

In this paper we describe two episodes of instructional interaction, in which examples are used in order to help students face their misconceptions. We introduce the notions of pivotal example and bridging example and highlight their role in creating and resolving a cognitive conflict. We suggest that the convincing power of counterexamples depends on the extent to which they are in accord with individuals’ example spaces.

Keywords

Cognitive conflict Conceptual change Pivotal example Bridging example Example space Proof scheme 

References

  1. Bell, A. (1993). Principles for the design of teaching. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24, 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bills, L., Dreyfus, T., Mason, J., Tsamir, P., Watson, A., & Zaslavsky, O. (2006). Exemplification in mathematics education. In J. Novotná, H. Moraová, M. Krátká, & N. Stehlíková (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education, v. 1 (pp. 125–154). Prague, Czech Republic.Google Scholar
  3. Ernest, P. (1996). Varieties of constructivism: A framework for comparison. In L. P. Steffe, P. Nesher, P. Cobb, G. A. Goldin, & B. Greer (Eds.), Theories of mathematical learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Ginsburg, H. P. (1997). Entering the child's mind: The clinical interview in psychological research and practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. 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. 234–283). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
  6. Klymchuk, S. (2001). Counter examples and conflicts as a remedy to eliminate misconceptions and mistakes. A case study. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th international conference for the psychology in mathematics education, v. 1, (p. 326). Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  7. Mason, J. (2002). What makes an example exemplary: Pedagogical and research issues in transitions from numbers to number theory. In A. D. Cockburn & E. Nardi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th international conference for psychology of mathematics education, v. 1, (pp. 224–229). Norwich, UK.Google Scholar
  8. Mason, J. (2006). What makes an example exemplary: Pedagogical and didactical issues in appreciating multiplicative structures. In R. Zazkis, & S. R. Campbell (Eds.), Number theory in mathematics education: Perspectives and prospects (pp. 41–68). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Press.Google Scholar
  9. Mason, J., & Pimm, D. (1984). Generic examples: Seeing the general in the particular. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15, 227–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Peled, I., & Zaslavsky, O. (1997). Counter-examples that (only) prove and counter-examples that (also) explain. FOCUS on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 19(3), 49–61.Google Scholar
  11. Rissland, E. L. (1991). Example-based reasoning. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Parkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning in education (pp. 187–208). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.Google Scholar
  13. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  14. Tall, D. (1977). Cognitive conflict and the learning of mathematics. Paper presented at the first conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education. Utrecht, Netherlands. retrieved on [date] from www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/ pdfs/dot1977a-cog-confl-pme.pdf.
  15. Tirosh, D., & Graeber, A. O. (1990). Evoking cognitive conflict to explore preservice teachers’ thinking about division. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(2), 98–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tirosh, D., & Tsamir, P. (2004). What can mathematics education gain from the conceptual change approach? And what can the conceptual change approach gain from its application to mathematics education? Learning and Instruction, 14(5), 535–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tsamir, P., & Tirosh, D. (1999). Consistency and representations: The case of actual infinity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 213–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Vosniadou, S., & Verschaffel, L. (2004). Extending the conceptual change approach to mathematics learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 14(5), 445–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Watson, J. M. (2002). Inferential reasoning and the influence of cognitive conflict. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 51, 225–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Watson, A., & Mason, J. (2005). Mathematics as a constructive activity: Learners generating examples. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Zaslavsky, O., & Lavie, O. (2005). Teachers’ use of instructional examples. Paper presented at the 15th ICMI study conference, Águas de Lindóia, Brazil, May. Google Scholar
  22. Zaslavsky, O., & Ron, G. (1998). Students’ understanding of the role of counter-examples. In A. Olivier, & K. Newstead (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education, v. 4, (pp. 225–232). Stellenbosch, South Africa: University of Stellenbosch.Google Scholar
  23. Zazkis, R., & Campbell, S. R. (1996). Prime decomposition: Understanding uniqueness. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15(2), 207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zazkis, R., & Hazzan, O. (1998). Interviewing in mathematics education research: Choosing the questions. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(4), 429–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zazkis, R., & Liljedahl, P. (2004). Understanding primes: The role of representation. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(3), 164–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations