ZDM

, Volume 46, Issue 5, pp 767–780 | Cite as

Opportunities to engage with proof: the nature of proof tasks in two geometry textbooks and its influence on enacted lessons

Original Article
First Online:
Accepted:

Abstract

This paper compares task features and cognitive demand of proof tasks in two US high school geometry textbooks and considers how such differences influence geometry teachers’ facilitation of proof and students’ engagement with proof tasks during enacted lessons. Data were collected via interviews, task cover sheet-before implementation, task reflection sheet-after implementation, samples of students’ work, and classroom observations. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize task features and cognitive demands of proof within textbooks, and a grounded theory approach was used to analyze the enacted lessons. The results revealed variation in the nature of proof tasks within textbooks. Additionally, even though geometry textbooks may have higher-level demand proof tasks, there is no guarantee that such tasks would be assigned, or that the levels of cognitive demand of tasks will be maintained from the written to the enacted curriculum. Factors that can influence how teachers’ use textbooks include: beliefs, students’ disposition, and assessment. Thus, teachers’ actions can limit the extent students engage with proof. This study has implications for unpacking the complexities of students’ engagement with proof.

Keywords

Proof Geometry Textbooks Task features And levels of cognitive demands 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Anderson, J. R. (1983). Acquisition of proof skills in geometry. In R. S. Michalski, J. G. Carbonell & T. M. Mitchell (Eds.), Machine learning: An artificial intelligence approach (pp. 191–219).Google Scholar
  2. Bass, L. E., Charles, R. I., Johnson, A., & Kennedy, D. (2004). Prentice hall mathematics geometry. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.Google Scholar
  3. Battista, M. T. (2007). The development of geometric and spatial thinking. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 843–908). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Bieda, K. N. (2010). Enacting proof-related tasks in middle school mathematics: Challenges and opportunities. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(4), 351–382.Google Scholar
  5. Boston, M. D., & Smith, M. S. (2009). Transforming secondary mathematics teaching: Increasing the cognitive demands of instructional tasks used in teachers’ classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(2), 119–156.Google Scholar
  6. Chang, Y.-P., Lin, F.-L., & Reiss, K. (2012). Learning opportunities for mathematical proof: The presentation of geometry problems in German and Taiwanese textbooks. Paper presented at the 36th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  7. Cirillo, M. (2008). On becoming a geometry teacher: A longitudinal case study of one teacher learning to teach proof. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Iowa State University, Ames.Google Scholar
  8. Cirillo, M., & Herbst, P. (2010). Moving toward more authentic proof practices in geometry. http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/78169.
  9. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: New Jersey Merrill.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, J. D. (2012). An examination of reasoning and proof opportunities in three differently organized secondary mathematics textbook units. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 24(4), 467–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duval, R. (1995). Geometrical pictures: Kinds of representation and specific processings. In R. Sutherland & J. Mason (Eds.), Exploiting mental imagery with computers in mathematics education (pp. 142–157). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fischbein, E. (1993). The theory of figural concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24(2), 139–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fujita, T., & Jones, K. (2003). Critical review of geometry in current textbooks in lower secondary schools in Japan and the UK. In N. A. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty & J. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Honolulu, HI, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Furinghetti, F., & Morselli, F. (2011). Beliefs and beyond: Hows and whys in the teaching of proof. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics, 43(4), 587–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2009). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Piscataway: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
  16. Hanna, G., & de Villiers, M. (2012). Proof and proving in mathematics education. The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harel, G. (2008). DNR perspective on mathematics curriculum and instruction. Part I: Focus on proving. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40(3), 487–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harel, G., & Rabin, J. M. (2010). Teaching practices associated with the authoritative proof scheme. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(1), 14–19.Google Scholar
  19. Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (2007). Toward comprehensive perspectives on the learning and teaching of proof. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 805–842). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Heinze, A., & Reiss, K. (2004). The teaching of proof at the lower secondary level—A video study. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics, 36, 98–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Henningsen, M., & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(5), 524–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Herbst, P. G. (2002). Engaging students in proving: A double bind on the teacher. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(3), 176–203.Google Scholar
  24. Herbst, P. G. (2004). Interactions with diagrams and the making of reasoned conjectures in geometry. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 36(5), 129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Herbst, P. G. (2006). Teaching geometry with problems: Negotiating instructional situations and mathematical tasks. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37, 313–347.Google Scholar
  26. Jahnke, H. N., & Wambach, R. (2013). Understanding what a proof is: A classroom-based approach. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics, 45(3), 469–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Knuth, E. J. (2002). Teachers’ conceptions of proof in the context of secondary school mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5(1), 61–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Laborde, C. (2005). The hidden role of diagrams in students’ construction of meaning in geometry. In J. Kilpatrick, C. Hoyles, & O. Skovsmose (Eds.), Meaning in mathematics education (pp. 159–179). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Larson, R., Boswell, L., Kanold, T. D., & Stiff, L. (2007). Mcdogal littell geometry. Dallas, TX: McDougal Littell.Google Scholar
  30. Lin, F. L., Yang, K. L., Lee, K. H., Tabach, M., & Stylianides, G. (2012). Principles of task design for conjecturing and proving. Proof and proving in mathematics education (pp. 305–325). The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Mariotti, M. A. (1995). Images and concepts in geometrical reasoning. In R. Sutherland & J. Mason (Eds.), Exploiting mental imagery with computers in mathematics education (pp. 97–116). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. McCrone, S. M., & Martin, T. S. (2004). Assessing high school students’ understanding of geometric proof. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 4(2), 223–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McCrone, S. M., Martin, T. S., Dindyal, J., & Wallace, M. L. (2002). An investigation of classroom factors that influence proof construction ability. Paper presented at the 24th Annual Meeting of Psychology of Mathematics Education, Athens, Georgia.Google Scholar
  35. NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: Author.Google Scholar
  36. Otten, S., Males, L. M., & Gilbertson, N. J. (2013). The introduction of proof in secondary geometry textbooks. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 107–118.Google Scholar
  37. Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousands Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Pepin, B., Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2013). Investigating textbooks as crucial interfaces between culture, policy and teacher curricular practice: Two contrasted case studies in France and Norway. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(5), 685–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1986). On having and using geometric knowledge. In H. J. (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 225-264). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  40. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1988). When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters of “well-taught” mathematics courses. Educational Psychologist, 23(2), 145–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Siu, M. K. (2008). Proof as a practice of mathematical pursuit in a cultural, socio-political and intellectual context. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40(3), 355–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (1998). Selecting and creating mathematical tasks: From research to practice. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3(5), 344–350.Google Scholar
  43. Stake, R. E. (2013). Multiple case study analysis. London: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  44. Stylianides, A. J. (2007). Proof and proving in school mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(3), 289–321.Google Scholar
  45. Stylianides, G. J. (2008). Investigating the guidance offered to teachers in curriculum materials: The case of proof in mathematics. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(1), 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stylianou, D. A., Blanton, M. L., & Knuth, E. J. (Eds.). (2009). Teaching and larning proof across the grades: A K-16 perspective. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Tarr, J. E., Ross, D. J., McNaught, M. D., Chavez, O., Grouws, D. A., Reys, R. E., Sears, R., Taylan, R. D. (2010). Identification of student-and teacher-level variables in modeling variation of mathematics achievement data. Online Submission, 32-32.Google Scholar
  48. Thompson, D. R. (2012). Reasoning and justification in the secondary mathematics classroom. In B. Kaur & T. Lam (Eds.), Reasoning, communication and connections in mathematics (pp. 88–106). Danvers: World Scientific Publishing Co., Pte. Ltd.Google Scholar
  49. Thompson, D. R., Senk, S. L., & Johnson, G. J. (2012). Opportunities to learn reasoning and proof in high school mathematics textbooks. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43(3), 253–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Weiss, I. R., Banilower, E. R., McMahon, K. C., & Smith, P. S. (2001). Report of the 2000 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill: Horizon Research Inc.Google Scholar
  51. Wilson, L. (1994). What gets graded is what gets valued. Mathematics Teacher, 87(6), 412–414.Google Scholar
  52. Zaslavsky, O., Nickerson, S. D., Stylianides, A. J., Kidron, I., & Winicki-Landman, G. (2012). The need for proof and proving: Mathematical and pedagogical perspectives. In Proof and Proving in Mathematics Education (pp. 215–229). The Netherlands: SpringerGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Secondary Education, College of EducationUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsUniversity of Texas at San AntonioSan AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations