Skip to main content
Log in

Reasoning and proof in geometry: effects of a learning environment based on heuristic worked-out examples

  • Original article
  • Published:
ZDM Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We analyze heuristic worked-out examples as a tool for learning argumentation and proof. Their use in the mathematics classroom was motivated by findings on traditional worked-out examples, which turned out to be efficient for learning algorithmic problem solving. The basic idea of heuristic worked-out examples is that they encourage explorative processes and thus reflect explicitly different phases while performing a proof. We tested the hypotheses that teaching with heuristic examples is more effective than usual classroom instruction in an experimental classroom study with 243 grade 8 students. The results suggest that heuristic worked-out examples were more effective than the usual mathematics instruction. In particular, students with an insufficient understanding of proof were able to benefit from this learning environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The fact that the significant differences in the posttest results were obtained only for specific student groups for specific levels indicates that results cannot be explained by “poor” instruction in the control group classes. Otherwise the differences between experimental and control groups in the achievement would be more apparent on all levels. A second point is that there were the same teachers in grade 7 and 8 and the grade 7 results were similar for both groups.

References

  • Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. W. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational Research, 70, 181–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumert, J., Lehmann, R., Lehrke, M., Schmitz, B., Clausen, M., Hosenfeld, I., Köller O., & Neubrand, J. (1997). TIMSS – Mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlicher Unterricht im internationalen Vergleich. Deskriptive Befunde. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

  • Balacheff, N. (1982). Preuve et demonstration en mathematiques au college. Recherche de Didactique Math, 3(3), 261–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balacheff, N. (1999). Is argumentation an obstacle? International newsletter on the teaching and learning of mathematical proof (5/6). Retrieved March 2008 from http://www.lettredelapreuve.it

  • Boero, P. (1999). Argumentation and mathematical proof: A complex, productive, unavoidable relationship in mathematics and mathematics education. International newsletter on the teaching and learning of mathematical proof, 7/8. http://www.lettredelapreuve.it/Newsletter/990708Theme/990708ThemeUK.html

  • Carroll, W. M. (1994). Using worked examples as an instructional support in the algebra classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 360–367. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.86.3.360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Götz, T., Pekrun, R., Perry, R. P., & Hladkyi, S. (2001). Academic emotions questionnaire: Codebook for English-language scale versions (Technical report). University of Munich: Department of Psychology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groß, C. (2003). Beweisen lernen mit heuristischen Lösungsbeispielen. In W. Henn (Hrsg.) Beiträge zum Mathematikunterricht 2003 (S. 257–260). Hildesheim: Franzbecker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanna, G., & de Villiers, M. (2008). ICMI Study 19: Proof and proving in mathematics education. ZDM-International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40(2), pp. tba (online first).

  • Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (1998). Students’ proof schemes: Results from exploratory studies. In A. H. Schoenfeld, J. Kaput & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education III (pp. 234–283). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (1998). Justifying and proving in school mathematics. University of London, Institute of Education: Technical report on the nationwide survey. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinze, A., & Reiss, K. (2004). The teaching of proof at lower secondary level—a video study. ZDM International Journal on Mathematics Education, 36(3), 98–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinze, A., Reiss, K., & Rudoph, F. (2005). Mathematics achievement and interest in mathematics from a differential perspective. ZDM. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 37(3), 212–220. doi:10.1007/s11858-005-0011-7

  • Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23–31. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klieme, E., Reiss, K., & Heinze, A. (2003). Geometrical competence and understanding of proof. A study based on TIMSS items. In F. L. Lin & J. Guo (Eds.), Proceedings of the international conference on science and mathematics learning 2003 (pp. 60–80). Taipei (Taiwan): National Taiwan Normal University.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeFevre, J. -A., & Dixon, P. (1986). Do written instructions need examples? Cognition and Instruction, 3, 1–30. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0301_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, F. L. (2000). An approach for developing well-tested, validated research of mathematics learning and teaching. In T. Nakahara & M. Koyama (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp. 84–88). Hiroshima: Hiroshima University.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pólya, G. (1957). (1957). How to solve it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Recker, M. M., & Pirolli, P. (1995). Modelling individual differences in students’ learning strategies. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 1–38. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0401_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, K., Hellmich, F., & Reiss, M. (2002a). Reasoning and proof in geometry: Prerequisites of knowledge acquisition in secondary school students. In A. D. Cockburn & E. Nardi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 4, pp. 113–120). Norwich: University of East Anglia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, K., Hellmich, F., & Thomas, J. (2002). Individuelle und schulische Bedingungsfaktoren für Argumentationen und Beweise im Mathematikunterricht. In M. Prenzel, M. & J. Doll J. (Hrsg.), Bildungsqualität von Schule: Schulische und außerschulische Bedingungen mathematischer, naturwissenschaftlicher und überfachlicher Kompetenzen. 45. Beiheft der Zeitschrift für Pädagogik (S. 51–64). Weinheim: Beltz.

  • Reiss, K., Klieme, E., & Heinze, A. (2001). Prerequisites for the understanding of proofs in the geometry classroom. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 4, pp. 97–104). Utrecht: Utrecht University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, K., & Renkl, A. (2002). Learning to prove: The idea of heuristic examples. ZDM. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 34(1), 29–35. doi:10.1007/BF02655690

  • Reiss, K., & Törner, G. (2007). Problem solving in the mathematics classroom: The German perspective. ZDM. The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 39(5–6), 431–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive Science, 21, 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A. (2002). Learning from worked-out examples: Instructional explanations supplement self-explanations. Learning and Instruction, 12, 529–556. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00030-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skills acquisition: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychologist, 38, 15–22. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. (1983). Episodes and executive decisions in mathematical problem-solving. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematics. Concepts and processes (pp. 345–395). New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. (1985). Mathematical problem-solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, S. (1997). Fermat’s last theorem. London: Fourth Estate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, J., Gonzales, P., Kawanaka, T., Knoll, S., & Serrano, A. (1999). The TIMSS videotape classroom study. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296. doi:10.1023/A:1022193728205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanLehn, K. (1986). Arithmetic procedures are induced from examples. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 133–180). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Waerden, B. L. (1954). Einfall und Überlegung. Basel: Birkhäuser.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertheimer, M. (1945). Productive thinking. New York: Harper Brothers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, X., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Learning mathematics from examples and by doing. Cognition and Instruction, 4, 137–166. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0403_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristina Maria Reiss.

Additional information

This research was funded by the “Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft” (German research council) within the priority program “Bildungsqualität von Schule” (Studies on the quality of school; RE 1247/4).

Appendix

Appendix

A heuristic worked-out example: Opposing sides and angles of parallelograms (slightly shortened version)

  1. I.

    The problem

Nina and Tom have drawn and measured parallelograms. In doing so, they noticed that opposing sides were always of equal length. Moreover, opposing angles were always of equal size.

Tom: “We measured so many parallelograms: We have drawn all kinds of quadrangles and always we recognized that the opposing sides were of equal length and opposing angles were of equal size. I think, it has to be like this!”

Nina: “I think you are right, but I don’t know a reason. Maybe by chance, we have only drawn parallelograms for which the statement is correct? We cannot measure the angles and sides exactly. Perhaps they were only approximately of the same size.”

Tom: “So let’s try to prove our assumption like mathematicians would do!”

Tom and Nina try to prove the following mathematical proposition:

“In a parallelogram opposing sides are of equal length and opposing angles are commensurate!”

In the following we have a look at how they solved the mathematical problem. Please read their solution, but try to complete all steps on your own.

  1. II.

    Examination of the Problem

First we want to reproduce the measurement results of Tom and Nina. You will need a set square, paper, and pencils.

(a) Draw a parallelogram ABCD and mark the angles with α, β, γ, δ. Afterwards measure and note the sizes of its sides and angles.

(b) The experiments suggest that opposing sides and angles are of equal size in all parallelograms. You may remember that this characteristic is called congruence. In 7th grade you learned that congruent sides and angles can be transformed on one another by using congruency mappings.

Nina and Tom remember some facts:

Nina: “When did we hear of angles and sides that have the same size?”

Tom: “In the 7th grade.”

Nina: “Yes, when we learned about congruency mappings.”

What kind of congruency mappings do you remember?

Answer: ——

(c) The pictures on this page display several congruency mappings. Figure out what kind of congruency mappings are displayed and mark the congruent sides of the triangles.

Nina and Tom think about using the properties of congruency mappings for parallelograms.

Tom: “So far, by using congruency mappings we got new parallelograms.”

Nina: “Now, what can we do with the congruency mappings?”

Tom: “We could transform all the figures in congruent figures.”

Nina: “But we don’t want to construct new parallelograms. Rather we want to demonstrate that opposing sides and angles are of equal sizes. Therefore we need to transform the parallelogram on itself.”

Try to detect all the symmetry axes, rotation centers, and the center of the point of reflection of the parallelogram and mark them in a figure.

  1. III.

    Statement

So far it seems that Tom’s and Nina’s statement was correct. Try to rephrase this statement in a formula:

Prove what you wrote by filling in the gaps in the following text:

We know that a parallelogram is a ——, in which the —— sides are parallel.

We claim:

If A, B, C, D are the—of a parallelogram and α, β, γ, δ are its——, then you can say that:

— = —, — = —, — = —, — = — .

Compare your statement to the statement of Tom and Nina on the first page.

  1. IV.

    What do you know about quadrangles, parallel straight lines and congruency transformations

There are a lot of arguments that could be important for the proof of the conjecture. In particular, please try to remember the following facts:

  • Congruency mappings map

    straight lines on ——,

    circles on ——,

    sections on ——with equal ——,

    angles on —— of equal ——.

  • The point of reflection is a rotation of —— degrees.

  • The sum of angles in a quadrangle always is —— degrees.

  • In a point of reflection every point lies on a ——

    with its image point and the ——.

    The center is exactly ——

    between —— and ——

    ——.

  • The point of reflection maps straight lines on——

  • With the line of reflection straight lines that are orthographic to the axis of reflection are mapped on the ——

  • With the line of reflection straight lines that are orthographic to the axis of reflection are mapped on the ——

  • Straight lines that are parallel to the axis of the reflection are mapped on the ————.

  1. V

    The Proof Idea

The length of a side and the size of an angle remain unchanged when congruency mappings are applied. Thus, if we find a mapping, which maps each side of a parallelogram on the opposing side and each angle on the opposing angle we will know that they are of equal size. Have another look on section (d):

Where would the point of symmetry or the axis of reflection have to be?

Try to extend your proof idea to a proof.

  1. VI.

    Proving the Conjecture

ABCD is an arbitrary parallelogram with the angles α, β, γ, δ. We draw the diagonal [AC] and call the middle of it M, as in the figure.

Then A is mapped with a —— on M to A’ = —— and C to C’ = ——, because M is the—— between A and C. The straight-line AB is mapped to a —— straight-line, which goes trough A’ = ____, so to _______. Also the straight-line BC is mapped to a —— straight-line through C’ = ——, so to ——.

Now we find B’, the image point of B. To do this we use the fact that B is the point of intersection of the straight-lines —— and ——. The image point of B has to be the point of intersection of both image lines, that means the point of intersection of—— and ——. This point of intersection is —, that is why B’ = ——.

In the same way we conclude that D’ = ——. So the —— on M maps the parallelogram to ——. This means that the section [AB] is mapped to ——, and the section [BC] is mapped to ——. Because the —— maps the sections to ——, it can be concluded that —— = —— and —— = ——.

Furthermore it follows that α’ = —— and β’ = ——. Because the —— maps angles to —— of —— size, we conclude that —— = —— and —— = ——.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reiss, K.M., Heinze, A., Renkl, A. et al. Reasoning and proof in geometry: effects of a learning environment based on heuristic worked-out examples. ZDM Mathematics Education 40, 455–467 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-008-0105-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-008-0105-0

Keywords

Navigation