Advertisement

Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 711–733 | Cite as

High school mathematics teachers’ perspectives on the purposes of mathematical proof in school mathematics

  • David S. Dickerson
  • Helen M. Doerr
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

Proof serves many purposes in mathematics. In this qualitative study of 17 high school mathematics teachers, we found that these teachers perceived that two of the most important purposes for proof in school mathematics were (a) to enhance students’ mathematical understanding and (b) to develop generalized thinking skills that were transferable to other fields of endeavor. We found teachers were divided on the characteristics (or features) of proofs that would serve these purposes. Teachers with less experience tended to believe that proofs in the high school should adhere to strict standards of language and reasoning while teachers with more experience tended to believe that proofs based on concrete or visual features were well suited for high school mathematics. This study has implications for teacher preparation because it appears that there is a wide variation in how teachers think about proof. It seems likely that students would experience proof very differently merely because they were seated in different classrooms.

Keywords

Mathematics education Mathematical proof Advanced mathematical thinking Secondary mathematics 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Balacheff, N. (1991). Treatment of refutations: Aspects of the complexity of a constructivist approach to mathematics learning. In E. von Glasersfeld (Ed.), Radical constructivism in mathematics education (pp. 89–110). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chazan, D. (1993). High school geometry students’ justification for their views of empirical evidence and mathematical proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24, 359–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Davis, P. (1993). Visual theorems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24, 333–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davis, P., & Hersh, R. (1981). The mathematical experience. Boston: Birkhauser.Google Scholar
  5. de Villiers, M. (1990). The role and function of proof in mathematics. Pythagoras, 24, 17–24.Google Scholar
  6. Dickerson, D. (2006). Aspects of preservice teachers’ understandings of the purposes of mathematical proof. In S. Alatorre, J. Cortina, M. Sáiz, & A. Méndez (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual meeting of the North American chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 710–716). Mérida: Universidad Pedagógica Nacional.Google Scholar
  7. Dickerson, D., & Doerr, H. (2008). Subverting the task: Why some proofs are valued over others in school mathematics. In O. Figueras, J. Cortina, S. Alatorre, T. Rojano, & A. Sepúlveda (Eds.), Proceedings of the joint meeting of PME 32 and PME NA XXX (Vol. 2, pp. 407–414). Morelia, México: Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo.Google Scholar
  8. Dubinsky, E. (1986). Teaching mathematical induction I. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 5, 305–317.Google Scholar
  9. Ernest, P. (1984). Mathematical induction: A pedagogical discussion. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15, 173–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fischbein, E. (1982). Intuition and proof. For the Learning of Mathematics, 3(2), 9–18.Google Scholar
  11. Goldin, G. (2000). A scientific perspective on structured, task-based interviews in mathematics education research. In A. Kelley & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 517–545). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Hanna, G. (1989). Proofs that prove and proofs that explain. In G. Vergnaud, J. Rogalski, & M. Artigue (Eds.), Proceedings of the thirtheenth international conference for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 2, pp. 45–51). Paris: University Rene Descartes.Google Scholar
  13. Hanna, G. (1991). Mathematical proof. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 54–61). Dordecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Hanna, G. (2000). Proof, explanation and exploration: An overview. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanna, G., & Sidoli, N. (2007). Visualization and proof: A brief survey of philosophical perspectives. ZDM Mathematics Education, 39, 73–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (1998). Students’ Proof schemes: Results from an exploratory study. In A. H. Schoenfeld, J. Kaput, & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), Research in college mathematics education III (pp. 234–283). Providence: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
  17. Herbst, P. (2002). Engaging students in proving: A double bind on the teacher. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(3), 176–203.Google Scholar
  18. Klutch, R., Bumby, D., Collins, D., & Egbers, E. (1991). Integrated mathematics: Course 2. Columbus: Merrill Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  19. Knuth, E. (2002a). Secondary school mathematics teachers’ conceptions of proof. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(5), 379–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Knuth, E. (2002b). Teachers’ conceptions of proof in the context of secondary school mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5(1), 61–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lowenthal, F., & Eisenberg, T. (1992). Mathematical induction in school: An illusion of rigor? School Science and Mathematics, 92(5), 233–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston: Author.Google Scholar
  23. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: Author.Google Scholar
  24. Nelsen, R. (1993). Proofs without words: Exercises in visual thinking. Washington: Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar
  25. Rodd, M. (2000). On mathematical warrants: Proof does not always warrant, and a warrant may be other than a proof. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2(3), 221–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schoenfeld, A. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. London: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
  27. Segal, J. (2000). Learning about mathematical proof: Conviction and validity. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(2), 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Selden, J., & Selden, A. (1995). Unpacking the logic of mathematical statements. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29, 123–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stylianides, A., Stylianides, G., & Philippou, G. (2004). Undergraduate students’ understanding of the contraposition equivalence rule in symbolic and verbal contexts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 55, 133–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Varghese, T. (2009). Secondary-level student teachers’ conceptions of mathematical proof. Issues in the undergraduate mathematics preparation of school teachers: The Journal, volume 1: Content knowledge. Retrieved from http://www.k-12prep.math.ttu.edu/.
  31. Weber, K. (2010). Mathematics majors’ perceptions of conviction, validity, and proof. Mathematical Thinking and Learning: An International Journal, 12(4), 306–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Williams, E. (1979). An investigation of senior high school students’ understanding of the nature of mathematical proof. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Edmonton: University of Alberta.Google Scholar
  33. Winkler, P. (2004). Mathematical puzzles: A connoisseur’s collection. Natick: A. K. Peters, LTD.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State University of New York College at CortlandCortlandUSA
  2. 2.Syracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options