# Is this a coincidence? The role of examples in fostering a need for proof

- 356 Downloads
- 11 Citations

## Abstract

It is widely known that students often treat examples that satisfy a certain universal statement as sufficient for showing that the statement is true without recognizing the conventional need for a general proof. Our study focuses on special cases in which examples satisfy certain universal statements, either true or false in a special type of mathematical task, which we term “Is this a coincidence?”. In each task of this type, a geometrical example was chosen carefully in a way that appears to illustrate a more general and potentially surprising phenomenon, which can be seen as a conjecture. In this paper, we articulate some design principles underlying the choice of examples for this type of task, and examine how such tasks may trigger a need for proof. Our findings point to two different kinds of ways of dealing with the task. One is characterized by a doubtful disposition regarding the generality of the observed phenomenon. The other kind of response was overconfidence in the conjecture even when it was false. In both cases, a need for “proof” was evoked; however, this need did not necessarily lead to a valid proof. We used this type of task with two different groups: capable high school students and experienced secondary mathematics teachers. The findings were similar in both groups.

## Keywords

Isosceles Triangle Dynamic Geometry Dynamic Geometry Environment Strong Confidence Mathematical Claim## References

- Alcock, L. (2004). Uses of example objects in proving. In H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.)
*Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for The Psychology of Mathematics Education*(Vol. 2, pp. 17–24). Bergen, Norway: Bergen University College.Google Scholar - Balacheff, N. (1990). Towards a Problématique for Research in Mathematics Education.
*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,**21*(4), 258–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Behr, M., & Harel, G. (1995). Students’ errors, misconceptions, and conflict in application of procedures.
*Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics,**12*(3/4), 75–84.Google Scholar - Buchbinder, O., & Zaslavsky, O. (2007). How to decide? Students’ ways of determining the validity of mathematical statements. In D. Pita-Fantasy & G. Philippot (Eds.),
*Proceedings of the 5th Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education*(pp. 561–571), Larnaca: University of Cyprus.Google Scholar - Buchbinder, O., & Zaslavsky, O. (2008). Uncertainty: A driving force in creating a need for proving. Accepted to
*The**International Commission on Mathematical Instruction (ICMI), Study 19*:*Proof and Proving in Mathematics Education*.Google Scholar - Buchbinder, O., & Zaslavsky, O. (2009). A framework for understanding the status of examples in establishing the validity of mathematical statements. In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou, & C. Sakonidis (Eds.),
*Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education*(Vol. 2, pp. 225–232). Thessaloniki, Greece.Google Scholar - Fischbein, E. (1987).
*Intuition in science and mathematics: An educational approach*. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.Google Scholar - Fischbein, E., & Kedem, I. (1982). Proof and certitude in the development of mathematical thinking. In A. Vermandel (Ed.),
*Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of the Psychology of Mathematics Education*(pp. 128–131). Antwerp, Belgium.Google Scholar - Hadas, N., Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. B. (2000). The role of contradiction and uncertainty in promoting the need to prove in dynamic geometry environments.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44*(1 & 2), 127–150.Google Scholar - Hadass, N., & Hershkowitz, R. (2002). Activity analyses at the service of task design. In
*Proceedings of the 26th International Conference of the Psychology of Mathematics Education*(Vol. 3, pp. 49–56). Norwich, UK: University of East Anglia.Google Scholar - Harel, G. (2007). The DNR system as a conceptual framework for curriculum development and instruction. In R. Lesh, J. Kaput, & E. Hamilton (Eds.),
*Foundations for the future in mathematics education*(pp. 263–280). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar - Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (2007). Toward comprehensive perspectives on the learning and teaching of proof. In F. Lester (Ed.),
*Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and leaning.*(pp. 805–842). Reston, VA: NCTM, Information Age Pub Inc.Google Scholar - Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (2000). A study of proof conceptions in algebra.
*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,**31*(4), 396–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Mariotti, M. A. (2006). Proof and proving in mathematics education. In A. Gutierrez & P. Boero (Eds.),
*Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education*(pp. 173–204). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar - Movshovitz-Hadar, N. (1993). The false coin problem, mathematical induction, and knowledge fragility.
*Journal of Mathematical Behaviour,**12*, 253–268.Google Scholar - Movshovitz-Hadar, N., Inbar, S., & Zaslavsky, O. (1986). Students’ distortions of theorems.
*Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics,**8*(1), 49–57.Google Scholar - Patton, M. Q. (2002).
*Qualitative research & evaluation methods*(3rd ed.). California: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar - Peled, I., & Zaslavsky, O. (1997). Counter-examples that (only) prove and counter-examples that (also) explain.
*Focus on Learning Tasks in Mathematics,**19*(3), 49–61.Google Scholar - Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998).
*Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory*(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar - Tsamir, P., & Dreifus, T. (2005). How fragile is consolidated knowledge? Ben’s comparison of infinite sets.
*Journal of Mathematical Behaviour,**24*, 15–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Zaslavsky, O. (2005). Seizing the opportunity to create uncertainty in learning mathematics.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics,**60*, 297–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Zaslavsky, O. (2008). Meeting the challenges of mathematics teacher education through design and use of tasks that facilitate teacher learning. In B. Jaworski & T. Wood (Eds.),
*The mathematics teacher educator as a developing professional*(Vol. 4, pp. 93–114). In T. Wood (Series Ed.),*The international handbook of mathematics teacher education.*The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar - Zaslavsky, O., Nickerson, S. D., Stylianides, A., Kidron, I., & Winicki, G. (2011). The need for proof and proving: Mathematical and pedagogical perspectives. In G. Hanna & M. de Villiers (Eds.),
*Proof and proving in mathematics education*. Vol. 15 of the New ICMI Study Series. Springer (in press).Google Scholar - Zodik, I., & Zaslavsky, O. (2008). Characteristics of teachers’ choice of examples in and for the mathematics classroom.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics,**69*, 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar