Advertisement

Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 467–491 | Cite as

An examination of reasoning and proof opportunities in three differently organized secondary mathematics textbook units

  • Jon D. Davis
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

Students’ struggles in learning reasoning and proof (RP) in mathematics are well known. Despite the instantiation of RP opportunities in mathematics textbooks in the USA and the important role that textbooks play in teachers’ instructional decisions, little research has been conducted on analyzing student textbook tasks and narrative sections of mathematics textbooks in the USA. One polynomial functions unit located within a reform-oriented, conventional, and hybrid secondary mathematics textbook was examined for RP instances. RP tasks comprised 4, 9, and 22 % of the student tasks in the conventional, hybrid, and reform-oriented textbook units, respectively. The textbook exposition of all three textbook units promoted the presentation of proof building blocks (e.g., definitions) with no occurrences of conjecture development or testing. Overall, only 19 % of the learning objectives across the three textbook units were validated. The conventional and hybrid textbook units had the potential to promote an authoritative proof scheme in students while the reform-oriented textbook unit had the potential to promote an empirical proof scheme in students.

Keywords

Reasoning and proof Written curriculum 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Balacheff, N. (1988). Aspects of proof in pupils’ practice of school mathematics. In D. Pimm (Ed.), Mathematics, teachers, and children (pp. 216–238). London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
  2. Bellman, A. E., Bragg, S. C., Charles, R. I., Hall, B., Handlin, W. G., & Kennedy, D. (2009). Prentice Hall mathematics: Algebra 2. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  3. Bieda, K. (2010). Enacting proof-related tasks in middle school mathematics: challenges and opportunities. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(4), 351–382.Google Scholar
  4. Buchberger, B. (1990). Should students learn integration rules? ACM SIGSAM Bulletin, 24(1), 10–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Available from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Math%20Standards.pdf. Accessed 6 December 2011
  7. Education Development Center. (2009). Algebra 2. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  8. Edwards, T. G., & Ozgun-Koca, A. (2009). Creating a mathematics “b” movie: the effect of b on the graph of a quadratic. Mathematics Teacher, 103(3), 214–220.Google Scholar
  9. Fey, J. T., & Hirsch, C. R. (2007). The case of core-plus mathematics. In C. R. Hirsch (Ed.), Perspectives on the design and development of school mathematics curricula (pp. 129–142). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  10. Fey, J. T., Hirsch, C. R., Hart, E. W., Schoen, H. L., Watkins, A. E., Ritsema, B. E., et al. (2009). Core-plus mathematics: contemporary mathematics in context: course 3 (2nd ed.). New York: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  11. Garry, T. (2003). Computing, conjecturing, and confirming with a CAS tool. In J. T. Fey, A. Cuoco, C. Kieran, L. McMullin, & R. M. Zbiek (Eds.), Computer algebra systems in secondary school mathematics education (pp. 137–150). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  12. Graham, K., Cuoco, A., & Zimmerman, G. (2010). Focus in high school mathematics: reasoning and sense making in algebra. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  13. Grouws, D. A., & Smith, M. S. (2000). Findings from NAEP on the preparation and practices of mathematics teachers. In E. A. Silver & P. A. Kenney (Eds.), Results from the seventh mathematics assessment of the national assessment of education progress (pp. 107–141). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  14. Halmos, P. R. (1980). The heart of mathematics. The American Mathematical Monthly, 87(7), 519–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanna, G., & de Bruyn, Y. (1999). Opportunity to learn proof in Ontario grade twelve mathematics texts. Ontario Mathematics Gazette, 37(4), 23–29.Google Scholar
  16. Harel, G., & Rabin, J. M. (2010). Teaching practices associated with the authoritative proof scheme. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41, 14–19.Google Scholar
  17. Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (1998). Students’ proof schemes: results from exploratory studies. CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education, 7, 234–283.Google Scholar
  18. Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (2000). A study of proof conceptions in algebra. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 396–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heid, M. K., & Edwards, M. T. (2001). Computer algebra systems: revolution or retrofit for today’s mathematics classrooms? Theory Into Practice, 40, 128–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Herbst, P. (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
  21. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., et al. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  22. Johnson, G. J., Thompson, D. R., & Senk, S. L. (2010). Proof-related reasoning in high school textbooks. Mathematics Teacher, 103(6), 410–418.Google Scholar
  23. Knuth, E. J., Slaughter, M., Choppin, J., & Sutherland, J. (2002). Mapping the conceptual terrain of middle school students’ competencies in justifying and proving. In S. Mewborn, P. Sztajn, D. Y. White, H. G. Wiegel, R. L. Bryant, & K. Nooney (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 4, pp. 1693–1700). Athens, GA.Google Scholar
  24. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lappan, G., Fey, J. T., Fitzgerald, W. M., Friel, S. N., Phillips, E. D. (1998/2004). Connected mathematics project. Menlo Park: Dale Seymour Publications.Google Scholar
  26. Lindquist, M. M. (1997). NAEP findings regarding the preparation and classroom practices of mathematics teachers. In P. Kenney & E. A. Silver (Eds.), Results from the Sixth Mathematics Assessment of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (pp. 61–86). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  27. Martin, W. G., & Harel, G. (1989). Proof frames of preservice elementary teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(1), 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Murdock, J., Kamischke, E., & Kamischke, E. (2002). Discovering algebra: an investigative approach. Emeryville: Key Curriculum Press.Google Scholar
  29. Murdock, J., Kamischke, E., & Kamischke, E. (2004). Discovering advanced algebra: an investigative approach. Emeryville: Key Curriculum Press.Google Scholar
  30. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston: Author.Google Scholar
  31. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: Author.Google Scholar
  32. O’Keeffe, L. (2007). An analysis of the junior cycle mathematics textbooks. Unpublished dissertation, University of Limerick.Google Scholar
  33. Researchware. (2009). Hyperresearch 2.8.3. [Computer Software.]. Randolph: ResearchWare, Inc.Google Scholar
  34. Reys, B. J., & Reys, R. E. (2006). The development and publication of elementary mathematics textbooks: let the buyer beware! Phi Delta Kappan, 87(5), 377–383.Google Scholar
  35. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., & Raizen, S. A. (1997). A splintered vision: an investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education. Hingham: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  36. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2009). Series editor’s foreword. In D. A. Stylianou, M. L. Blanton, & E. J. Knuth (Eds.), Teaching and learning proof across the grades: A K-16 perspective (pp. xii–xvi). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Senk, S. L. (1985). How well do students write geometry proofs? Mathematics Teacher, 78(6), 448–456.Google Scholar
  38. Senk, S. L., & Thompson, D. R. (Eds.). (2003). Standards-based school mathematics curricula: what are they? What do students learn? Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Silver, E. A., & Carpenter, T. P. (1989). Mathematical methods. In M. M. Lindquist (Ed.), Results from the fourth mathematics assessment of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (pp. 10–18). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  40. Stacey, K., & Vincent, J. (2009). Modes of reasoning in explanations in Australian eighth-grade mathematics textbooks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72, 271–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stein, M. K., Remillard, J., & Smith, M. S. (2007). How curriculum influences student learning. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 1, pp. 319–370). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  42. Stylianides, A. (2007). Proof and proving in school mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(3), 289–321.Google Scholar
  43. Stylianides, G. J. (2005). Investigating students’ opportunities to develop proficiency in reasoning and proving: A curricular perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  44. Stylianides, G. J. (2009). Reasoning-and-proving in school mathematics textbooks. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 11(4), 258–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tarr, J. E., Reys, R. E., Reys, B. J., Chavez, O., Shih, J., & Osterlind, S. J. (2008). The impact of middle-grades mathematics curricula and the classroom learning environment on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(3), 247–280.Google Scholar
  46. Tinto, P. (1988). Students’ views on learning proof in high school geometry. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  47. Usiskin, Z., & Dossey, J. (2004). Mathematics education in the United States 2004: a capsule summary fact book written for the Tenth International Congress on Mathematics Education (ICME-10), Copenhagen, Denmark. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  48. Weiss, I. R., Banilower, E., McMahon, K., & Smith, P. S. (2001). Report of the 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education. Chapel Hill: Horizon Research.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Western Michigan UniversityKalamazooUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options