Advertisement

Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 145–166 | Cite as

Preservice teachers’ knowledge of proof by mathematical induction

  • Gabriel J. StylianidesEmail author
  • Andreas J. Stylianides
  • George N. Philippou
Article

Abstract

There is a growing effort to make proof central to all students’ mathematical experiences across all grades. Success in this goal depends highly on teachers’ knowledge of proof, but limited research has examined this knowledge. This paper contributes to this domain of research by investigating preservice elementary and secondary school mathematics teachers’ knowledge of proof by mathematical induction. This research can inform the knowledge about preservice teachers that mathematics teacher educators need in order to effectively teach proof to preservice teachers. Our analysis is based on written responses of 95 participants to specially developed tasks and on semi-structured interviews with 11 of them. The findings show that preservice teachers from both groups have difficulties that center around: (1) the essence of the base step of the induction method; (2) the meaning associated with the inductive step in proving the implication P(k) ⇒ P(k + 1) for an arbitrary k in the domain of discourse of P(n); and (3) the possibility of the truth set of a sentence in a statement proved by mathematical induction to include values outside its domain of discourse. The difficulties about the base and inductive steps are more salient among preservice elementary than secondary school teachers, but the difficulties about whether proofs by induction should be as encompassing as they could be are equally important for both groups. Implications for mathematics teacher education and future research are discussed in light of these findings.

Keywords

Proof Mathematical induction Content knowledge Knowledge fragility Mathematical reasoning Tasks Teacher education Collegiate mathematics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper uses data that were collected by the first two authors for their senior thesis, which was conducted at the University of Cyprus under the supervision of the third author; the first two authors have contributed equally to this paper. The authors wish to thank Dina Tirosh and anonymous reviewers for useful comments on an earlier version of the paper.

References

  1. Brousseau, G., & Otte, M. (1991). The fragility of knowledge. In A. J. Bishop, S. Mellin-Olsen, & J. van Dormolen (Eds.), Mathematical knowledge: Its growth through teaching (pp. 13–36). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Cambridge Conference on Teacher Training. (1967). Goals for mathematical education of elementary school teachers. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  3. Cooney, T. J. (1994). Teacher education as an exercise in adaptation. In D. B. Aichele, & A. F. Coxford (Eds.), Professional Development for Teachers of Mathematics (1994 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  4. Dubinsky, E. (1986). Teaching mathematical induction I. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 5, 305–317.Google Scholar
  5. Dubinsky, E. (1990). Teaching mathematical induction II. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 8, 285–304.Google Scholar
  6. Dubinsky, E., & Lewin, P. (1986). Reflective abstraction and mathematics education: The generic decomposition of induction and compactness. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 5, 55–92.Google Scholar
  7. Fawcett, H. P. (1938). The nature of proof (1938 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics). New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  8. Fischbein, E. (1982). Intuition and proof. For the Learning of Mathematics, 3(2), 9–18, 24.Google Scholar
  9. Hanna, G. (2000). Proof, explanation and exploration: an overview. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harel, G. (2002). The development of mathematical induction as a proof scheme: A model for DNR-based instruction. In S. Campbell, & R. Zaskis (Eds.), Learning and teaching number theory: Research in cognition and instruction (pp. 185–212). New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  11. Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (2000). Proof conceptions in algebra. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 396–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Knuth, E. J. (2002). Secondary school mathematics teachers’ conceptions of proof. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33, 379–405.Google Scholar
  13. Magnusson, S. (1996). Building a pedagogical content knowledge base for elementary science teacher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.Google Scholar
  14. Maher, C. A., & Martino, A. M. (1996). The development of the idea of mathematical proof: A 5-year case study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 194–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Marrades, R., & Gutiérrez, A. (2000). Proofs produced by secondary school students learning geometry in a dynamic computer environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 87–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Martin, W. G., & Harel, G. (1989). Proof frames of preservice elementary teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Movshovitz-Hadar, N. (1993). The false coin problem, mathematical induction and knowledge fragility. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 12, 253–268.Google Scholar
  18. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  19. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Reid, D. A. (2002). Elements in accepting an explanation. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 20, 527–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1994). What do we know about mathematics curricula?. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 13, 55–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.Google Scholar
  23. Simon, M. A., & Blume, G. W. (1996). Justification in the mathematics classroom: A study of prospective elementary teachers. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15, 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Smith, D. C. (2000). Content and pedagogical content knowledge for elementary science teacher educators: Knowing our students. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11(1), 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sowder, L., & Harel, G. (1998). Types of students’ justifications. The Mathematics Teacher, 91, 670–675.Google Scholar
  26. Steiner, H. (1989). The nature of theoretical concepts in physics and mathematics-implications for the fragility of knowledge in the educational context. In S. Vinner (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second International Jerusalem Convention on Education: Science and Mathematics Education – Interaction between Research and Practice (pp. 387–396). Israel: University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar
  27. Stylianides, A. J., Stylianides, G. J., & Philippou, G. N. (2004). Undergraduate students’ understanding of the contraposition equivalence rule in symbolic and verbal contexts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 55, 133–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sullivan, P. (2003). Editorial: Incorporating knowledge of, and beliefs about, mathematics into teacher education. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, 293–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabriel J. Stylianides
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andreas J. Stylianides
    • 2
  • George N. Philippou
    • 3
  1. 1.University of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.University of OxfordOxfordUK
  3. 3.University of CyprusNicosiaCyprus

Personalised recommendations