Abstract
In our study, 32 German and Swiss 8th/9th-grade classes of lower-secondary school worked with their teacher on the same proving problem. The sample belongs to the Swiss-German study “Quality of Instruction, Learning Behavior and Mathematical Understanding”. Our data analyses relate to the teachers’ approaches to generating a specific form of evidence with their classes when dealing with a particular elementary number-theory problem. We address the question of how the different strategies can be characterized as manifestations of a certain approach to proving and try to clarify in which way the observed approach can be interpreted as adaptive teaching behavior. For this purpose, we searched for possible correlations between three main strategies or types of generating a specific form of evidence (experimental, operative, formal-deductive approach) on the one hand and (a) the teachers’ beliefs and personal characteristics and (b) the students’ prior knowledge of algebra and mathematics in general on the other hand. As our analyses show, three main approaches to proving occurred but not in equal proportions: there is a predominance of the approach that entails the highest extent of formalization and abstraction. Nevertheless, an operative way of proving is widespread too. On the whole, the findings indicate that one particular approach to proving can be interpreted as a personal preference of a specific group of teachers and, at the same time, with respect to the students’ mathematical skills as a manifestation of adaptive teaching behavior.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
De Villiers (1990) describes the following five functions of proofs: verification, explanation, systematization, discovery, and communication.
In the education systems of Germany and Switzerland, lower-secondary education (grades 7 to 9) is organized in a streamed model. Depending on their academic achievements, students are assigned to one of three different school types (or tracks) that differ in their demands.
The survey of the teachers confirmed this assumption: the teachers reported that they often (four-point scale: 1: never, 2: rarely, 3: often, 4: very often) base the planning of their mathematics lessons on the learning-related preconditions of the students in the class (M = 3.38; SD = 0.61; N = 32) and on the results of the previous lesson (M = 3.56; SD = 0.50; N = 32).
In one class, the students first solved the problem in small-group work and thereafter presented their solutions in a whole-class discussion. In all other classes, the predominant pattern consisted in classroom discourse in which the teacher and the students jointly dealt with the problem.
‘Prototypical mathematics teachers’ are teachers who teach (more or less) exclusively mathematics and (nearly) no other subjects while ‘all-rounders’ are teachers who teach a range of different subjects in parallel (e.g., mathematics, biology, chemistry, physics, and computer science).
References
Aberdein, A. (2009). Mathematics and argumentation. Foundation of Science, 14(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-008-9158-3.
Aebli, H. (1981). Denken. Das Ordnen des Tuns. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers and Education, 33(2/3), 131–152.
Ainsworth, S., Bibby, P., & Wood, D. (2002). Examining the effects of different multiple representational systems in learning primary mathematics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 25–61.
Arzarello, F., Olivero, F., Paola, D., & Robutti, O. (2007). The transition to formal proof in geometry. In P. Boero (Ed.), Theorems in school. From history, epistemology and cognition to classroom practice (pp. 305–323). Rotterdam: Sense.
Balacheff, N. (1988). Etude des processus de preuve chez des élèves de collège. Grenoble: Université Joseph Fournier.
Balacheff, N. (2010). Bridging knowing and proving in mathematics: A didactical perspective. In G. Hanna, H. N. Jahnke & H. Pulte (Eds.), Explanation and proof in mathematics (pp. 115–135). New York: Springer.
Baroody, A. J., & Dowker (Eds.). (2003). The development of arithmetic concepts and skills: Constructing adaptive expertise. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Bieg, M., Goetz, T., Wolter, I., & Hall, N. C. (2015). Gender stereotype endorsement differentially predicts girls’ and boys’ trait-state discrepancy in math anxiety. Frontiers in Psychology, 17(6), 1404. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01404.
Blömeke, S., & Kaiser, G. (2014). Theoretical framework, study design and main results of TEDS-M. In S. Blömeke, F.-J. Hsieh, G. Kaiser & W. H. Schmidt (Eds.), International perspectives on teacher knowledge, beliefs and opportunities to learn. TEDS-M results (pp. 19–48). Heidelberg: Springer.
Brunner, E. (2013). Innermathematisches Beweisen und Argumentieren in der Sekundarstufe I. Münster: Waxmann.
Brunner, E., Jullier, R., & Lampart, J. (2019). Aufgabenangebot zum mathematischen Begründen in je zwei aktuellen Mathematikbüchern für die fünfte bzw. achte Klasse (in prep.).
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2012). Mathematics standards. http://www.corestandards.org/Math. Accessed 10 March 2018.
Corno, L., & Snow, R. E. (1986). Adapting teaching to individual differences among learners. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 605–629). New York: Macmillan.
de Villiers, M. (1990). The role and the function of proof in mathematics. Pythagoras, 24, 17–24.
de Villiers, M. (2010). Experimentation and proof in mathematics. In G. Hanna, H. N. Jahnke & H. Pulte (Eds.), Explanation and proof in mathematics (pp. 205–221). Dodrecht: Springer.
D-EDK. (2014). Lehrplan 21. Mathematik. Bern: Projekt Lehrplan 21.
Dreyfus, T., Nardi, E., & Leikin, R. (2012). Forms of proof and proving in the classroom. In G. Hanna & M. de Villiers (Eds.), Proof and proving in mathematics education: The 19th ICMI study (pp. 191–213). Dodrecht: Springer.
Drüke-Noe, C. (2014). Aufgabenkultur in Klassenarbeiten im Fach Mathematik. Empirische Untersuchungen in neunten und zehnten Klassen. Wiesbaden: Springer.
Duncker, K. (1935). Zur Psychologie des produktiven Denkens. Berlin: Springer.
Duval, R. (2007). Cognitive functioning and the understanding of mathematical processes of proof. In P. Boero (Ed.), Theorems in school (pp. 137–161). Rotterdam: Sense.
Fischbein, E. (1982). Intuition and proof. For the Learning of Mathematics, 3(2), 9–18.
Furinghetti, F., & Morselli, F. (2011). Beliefs and beyond: Hows and whys in the teaching of proof. ZDM, 43(4), 587–599.
Hammer, S., Reiss, K., Lehner, M. C., Heine, J.-H., Sälzer, C., & Heinze, A. (2016). Mathematische Kompetenz in PISA 2015: Ergebnisse, Veränderungen und Perspektiven. In K. Reiss, C. Sälzer, A. Schiepe-Tiska, E. Klieme, & O. Köller (Eds.), PISA 2015. Eine Studie zwischen Kontinuität und Innovation (pp. 219–247). Münster: Waxmann.
Hanna, G. (1990). Some pedagogical aspects of proof. Interchange, 21(1), 6–13.
Hanna, G., & Barbeau, E. (2008). Proofs as bearers of mathematical knowledge. ZDM, 40(3), 345–353.
Hanna, G., & Barbeau, E. (2010). Proofs as bearers of mathematical knowledge. In G. Hanna, H. N. Jahnke & H. Pulte (Eds.), Explanation and proof in mathematics (pp. 85–100). Dodrecht: Springer.
Hanna, G., & Jahnke, H. N. (1996). Proof and proving. In A. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education (pp. 877–908). Dodrecht: Kluwer.
Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (1998). Students’ proof schemes: Results from exploratory studies. CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education, 7, 234–283.
Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (2000). A study of proof conceptions in algebra. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(4), 396–428.
Heintz, B. (2000). Die Innenwelt der Mathematik. Zur Kultur und Praxis einer beweisenden Disziplin. Vienna: Springer.
Heinze, A., Star, J. R., & Verschaffel, L. (2009). Flexible and adaptive use of strategies and representations in mathematics education. ZDM, 41(5), 535–540.
Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K. C., Wearne, D., Murray, H., Olivier, A., & Human, P. (1997). Making sense. Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., & Jacobs, J. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries. Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
Hugener, I., Pauli, C., Reusser, K., Lipowsky, F., Rakoczy, K., & Klieme, E. (2009). Teaching patterns and learning quality in Swiss and German mathematics lessons. Learning and Instruction, 19(1), 66–78.
Jahnke, H. N. (2008). Theorems that admit exceptions, including a remark on Toulmin. ZDM, 40(3), 363–371.
Jahnke, H. N., & Ufer, S. (2015). Argumentieren und Beweisen. In R. Bruder, L. Hefendehl-Hebeker, B. Schmidt-Thieme & H.-G. Weigand (Eds.), Handbuch der Mathematikdidaktik (pp. 331–355). Heidelberg: Springer Spektrum.
Klieme, E., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (Eds.). (2006). Dokumentation der Erhebungs- und Auswertungsinstrumente zur schweizerisch-deutschen Videostudie “Unterrichtsqualität, Lernverhalten und mathematisches Verständnis”. Videoanalysen. Frankfurt: DIPF.
Klieme, E., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2009). The Pythagoras Study. In T. Janik & T. Seidel (Eds.), The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom (pp. 137–160). Münster: Waxmann.
KMK. (2005). Bildungsstandards der Kultusministerkonferenz. Erläuterungen zur Konzeption und Entwicklung. Munich: Luchterhand.
Knuth, E. (2002). Teachers’ conceptions of proof in the context of secondary school mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 33(5), 61–82.
Kotelawa, U. (2009). A survey of teacher beliefs on proving. In F.-L. Lin, F.-J. Hsieh, G. Hanna, & M. de Villiers (Eds.), Proof and proving in mathematics education. ICMI Study 19 Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1, pp. 250–255). Taipei: The Department of Mathematics, National Taiwan Normal University.
Lipowsky, F., Drollinger-Vetter, B., Hartig, J., & Klieme, E. (2006). Dokumentation der Erhebungs- und Auswertungsinstrumente zur schweizerisch-deutschen Videostudie “Unterrichtsqualität, Lernverhalten und mathematisches Verständnis” (Vol. 14). Frankfurt: DIPF. Leistungstests (Materialien zur Bildungsforschung.
Lorenz, J. H. (2017). Einige Anmerkungen zur Repräsentation von Wissen über Zahlen. JMD, 38(1), 125–139.
Malek, A., & Movshovitz-Hadar, N. (2011). The effect of using transparent pseudo-proofs in linear algebra. RME, 13(1), 33–58.
Mason, J., & Pimm, D. (1984). Generic examples: Seeing the general in the particular. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15, 277–289.
Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2002). Teachers’ beliefs and behaviors: What really matters? Journal of Classroom Interaction, 37, 3–15.
NCTM (Ed.). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: NCTM.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
OECD (Ed.). (2016). PISA 2015 results: Excellence and equity in education (Vol. 1). Paris: OECD.
Pfeiffer, K. (2011). Features and purposes of mathematical proofs in the view of novice students: Observations from proof validation and evaluation performances. Galway: National University of Ireland.
Rakoczy, K., Buff, A., & Lipowsky, F. (2005). Befragungsinstrumente. In E. Klieme, C. Pauli & K. Reusser (Eds.), Dokumentation der Erhebungs- und Auswertungsinstrumente zur schweizerisch-deutschen Videostudie “Unterrichtsqualität, Lernverhalten und mathematisches Verständnis” (Vol. 1). Frankfurt: DIPF.
Reid, D. (2005). The meaning of proof in mathematics education. In M. Bosch (Ed.), European research in mathematics education IV. Proceedings of CERME 4, San Feliu de Guixols, Spain. Barcelona: University Ramon Llull.
Reid, D. A., & Knipping, C. (2010). Proof in mathematics education. Research, learning and teaching. Rotterdam: Sense.
Reusser, K. (1984). Problemlösen in wissenstheoretischer Sicht. Problematisches Wissen, Problemformulierung und Problemverständnis. Berne: University of Berne.
Reusser, K. (1993). Tutoring systems and pedagogical theory: Representational tools for understanding, planning, and reflection in problem solving. In S. P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 143–177). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Reuterswärd, E., & Hemmi, K. (2011). Upper secondary school teachers’ views of proof and the relevance of proof in teaching mathematics. In M. Pytlak, T. Rowland & E. Swoboda (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventh congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 253–262). Rzeszów: University of Rzeszów.
Rowland, T. (2002). Generic proofs in number theory. In S. R. Campbell & R. Zazkis (Eds.), Learning and teaching number theory (pp. 157–183). Westport: Ablex.
Schoenfeld, A. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York: Macmillan.
Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J. C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 163–205). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Staub, F. C., & Stern, E. (2002). The nature of teachers’ pedagogical content beliefs matters for students’ achievement gains: Quasi-experimental evidence from elementary mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 344–355.
Stipek, D. J., Givvin, K. B., Salmon, J. M., & MacGyvers, V. L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs and practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 213–226.
Stylianides, G. L. (2008). An analytic framework of reasoning and proving. For the Learning of Mathematics, 28(1), 9–16.
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.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wagenschein, M. (1968). Verstehen lehren. Genetisch-Sokratisch-Exemplarisch. Weinheim: Beltz.
Warner, L. B., Schorr, R. Y., & Davis, G. E. (2009). Flexible use of symbolic tools for problem solving, generalization, and explanation. ZDM, 41(5), 663–679.
Wertheimer, M. (1964). Produktives Denken (2nd ed.). Frankfurt: Kramer.
Wittmann, E. C., & Müller, N. G. (1988). Wann ist ein Beweis ein Beweis? In P. Bender (Ed.), Mathematikdidaktik—Theorie und Praxis. Festschrift für Heinrich Winter (pp. 237–258). Berlin: Cornelsen.
Wittmann, E. Ch. (2009). Operative proof in elementary mathematics. In F.-L. Lin, F.-J. Hsieh, G. Hanna, & M. De Villiers (Eds.), Proof and proving in mathematics education. ICMI Study 19 Conference Proceedings (pp. 251–256). Taipei: Department of Mathematics National Taiwan Normal University.
Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation and autonomy in mathematics. The Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458–477.
Acknowledgements
We thank the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) for supporting the project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brunner, E., Reusser, K. Type of mathematical proof: personal preference or adaptive teaching behavior?. ZDM Mathematics Education 51, 747–758 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01026-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01026-y