Advertisement

ZDM

pp 1–16 | Cite as

Fostering first-year pre-service teachers’ proof competencies

  • Leander KempenEmail author
  • Rolf Biehler
Original Article
  • 81 Downloads

Abstract

In the study presented, as we report in this paper, we describe our theoretical and practical consideration to engage first-year pre-service teachers in proving activities in the context of a transition-to-proof course. We investigated how students argued to verify a claim of elementary number theory on entering university and compared the results to their performance in the final examination of the course. Subsequently, we elaborate on the following results: On entering university, students do not seem to be capable of using algebraic variables as a heuristic to engage in reasoning. However, after learning about different kinds of proofs and the symbolic language of mathematics, students give evidence of starting to value mathematical language and of enhancing their proof competencies.

Keywords

Transition to university Generic proof Variables Proving 

Notes

References

  1. Balacheff, N. (1988). Aspects of proof in pupils’ practice of school mathematics. In D. Pimm (Ed.), Mathematics, teachers and children (pp 216–235). London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
  2. Bell, A. W. (1976). A study of pupils’ proof-explanations in mathematical situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 7, 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biehler, R., & Kempen, L. (2013). Students’ use of variables and examples in their transition from generic proof to formal proof. In B. Ubuz, C. Haser & M. A. Mariotti (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 86–95). Ankara: Middle East Technical University. Retreived from http://cerme8.metu.edu.tr/wgpapers/WG1/WG1_Kempen.pdf. Accessed 12 Sep 2018.
  4. Biehler, R., & Kempen, L. (2016). Didaktisch orientierte Beweiskonzepte—Eine Analyse zur mathematikdidaktischen Ideenentwicklung. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 37(1), 141–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blum, W. (1998). On the role of “Grundvorstellungen” for reality-related proofs: Examples and reflections. Proceedings of CERME 3. Retrieved from http://www.erme.tu-dortmund.de/%7Eerme/CERME3/Groups/TG4/TG4_Blum_cerme3.pdf. Accessed 12 Sep 2018.
  6. Blum, W., & Kirsch, A. (1991). Preformal proving: Examples and reflections. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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, July/August.Google Scholar
  8. Brunner, E. (2013). Innermathematisches Beweisen und Argumentieren in der Sekundarstufe 1. Mögliche Erklärungen für systematische Bearbeitungsunterschiede und leistungsförderliche Aspekte. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  9. 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. 191–214). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Hemmi, K. (2006). Approaching proof in a community of mathematical practice. Stockholm University: Stockholm. Retrieved from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:189608/FULLTEXT01.pdf. Accessed 18 Sep 2018.
  11. Karunakaran, S., Freeburn, B., Konuk, N., & Arbaugh, F. (2014). Improving preservice secondary mathematics teachers’ capability with generic example proofs. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 2(2), 158–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kempen, L. (2019). Begründen und Beweisen im Übergang von der Schule zur Hochschule. Wiesbaden: Springer Spektrum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kempen, L., & Biehler, R. (2014). The quality of argumentations of first-year pre-service teachers. In S. Oesterle, P. Liljedahl, C. Nicol, & D. Allen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education and the 36th Conference of the North American Chapter of the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 425–432). Vancouver, Canada: PME.Google Scholar
  14. Kuckartz, U. (2012). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung. Weinheim/Basel: Beltz Juventa.Google Scholar
  15. Leikin, R. (2009). Multiple proof tasks: Teacher practice and teacher education. In F. L. Lin, F. J. Hsieh, G. Hanna & M. De Villiers (Eds.), ICMI Study 19: Proof and proving in mathematics education (Vol (2, pp. 31–36). Taipei: The Department of Mathematics, National Taiwan Normal University.Google Scholar
  16. Leron, U., & Zaslavski, O. (2013). Generic proving: Reflections on scope and method. For the Learning of Mathematics, 33(3), 24–30.Google Scholar
  17. Malle, G. (1993). Didaktische Probleme der elementaren Algebra. Braunschweig/Wiesbaden: Vieweg & Sohn.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mason, J., Graham, A., & Johnston-Wilder, S. (2005). Developing thinking in Algebra. London: The Open University.Google Scholar
  19. Mason, J., & Pimm, D. (1984). Generic examples: Seeing the general in the particular. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15, 277–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Recio, A. M., & Godino, J. D. (2001). Institutional and personal meanings of mathematical proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 48, 83–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Reid, D., & Vallejo Vargas, E. (2018). When is a generic argument a proof? In A. J. Stylianides & G. Harel (Eds.), Advances in mathematics education research on proof and proving: An international perspective (pp. 239–251). Cham: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Selden, A. (2012). Transitions and proof and proving at tertiary level. In G. Hanna & M. de Villiers (Eds.), Proof and proving in mathematics education: The 19th ICMI Study (pp. 391–422). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Selden, A., & Selden, J. (2007). Overcoming students’ difficulties in learning to understand and construct proofs. Making the connection: Research and practice in undergraduate mathematics. MAA Notes.Google Scholar
  24. Tall, D. (1979). Cognitive aspects of proof, with special reference to the irrationality of √2. In D. Tall (Ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 203–205). Warwick: The Mathematics Education Research Center.Google Scholar
  25. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Wittmann, E. C. (2009). Operative proof in elementary mathematics. In F.-L. Lin, F.-J. Hsieh, G. Hanna & M. de Villiers (Eds.), Proceedings of the ICMI Study 19 conference: Proof and Proving in Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 251–256). Taipei: The Department of Mathematics, National Taiwan Normal University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universitat PaderbornPaderbornGermany

Personalised recommendations