Advertisement

Do prototypical constructions and self-attributes of presented drawings affect the construction and validation of proofs?

  • Aehsan Haj-YahyaEmail author
Original Article
  • 37 Downloads

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of students’ constructions of geometrical concepts related to the circle on their construction and validation of proofs. The participants were 110 high school students. A questionnaire was administered; both qualitative and quantitative methods were used to analyze the results. Afterwards, in-depth interviews were conducted with some of the participants. The findings from the interviews enriched and strengthened the findings from the questionnaire. Together, the findings highlight the impact of two factors on the ability to construct or evaluate proofs: (1) the use of the self-attributes of a single presented drawing instead of the critical attributes of the concept; and (2) the use of prototypical or non-prototypical examples. In this study, the position of the drawing attached to the assignment affected students’ construction of proofs.

Keywords

Concept image Drawing Geometrical concepts Proofs Prototypical examples 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abdelfatah, H. (2011). A story-based dynamic geometry approach to improve attitudes toward geometry and geometric proof. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(3), 441–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balacheff, N. (1991). The benefits of limits of social interaction: The case of mathematical proof. In A. J. Bishop, S. Mellin-Olsen, & J. Van Dormolen (Eds.), Mathematical knowledge: Its growth through teaching (pp. 175–192). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Battista, M. T. (2007). The development of geometric and spatial thinking. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. Charlotte: NCTM/Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Bell, A. W. (1976). A study of pupils’ proof-explanations in mathematical situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 7(1), 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bills, L., Dreyfus, T., Mason, J., Tsamir, P., Watson, A., & Zaslavsky, O. (2006). Exemplification in mathematics education. In J. Novotná, H. Moraová, M. Krátká, & N. Stehlíková (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 126–154). Prague: PME.Google Scholar
  6. Chen, C.-L., & Herbst, P. (2013). The interplay among gestures, discourse, and diagrams in students’ geometrical reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(2), 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duval, R. (1998). Geometry from a cognitive point of view. In C. Mammana & V. Villani (Eds.), Perspectives on the teaching of geometry for the 21st century (pp. 37–51). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Duval, R. (1999). Representation, vision and visualization: Cognitive functions in mathematical thinking. Basic issues for learning (plenary address). In F. Hitt & M. Santos (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Conference of the North American Group for the psychology of mathematics education, Vol. 1 (pp. 3–26). Cuernavaca: PME.Google Scholar
  9. Dvora, T., & Dreyfus, T. (2014). Unjustified assumptions in geometry made by high school students. Mediterranean Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 13, 29–55.Google Scholar
  10. Erdogan, E. O., & Dur, Z. (2014). Preservice mathematics teachers’ personal figural concepts and classifications about quadrilaterals. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(6), 107–133.Google Scholar
  11. Fischbein, E. (1993). The theory of figural concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24, 139–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fischbein, E. (1994). The interaction between the formal, the algorithmic, and the intuitive components in a mathematical activity. In R. Biehler, R. W. Scholz, R. Strässer, & B. Winkelmann (Eds.), Didactics of mathematics as a scientific discipline (pp. 231–245). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Fischbein, E., & Kedem, I. (1982). Proof and certitude in the development of mathematical thinking. In A. Vermandel (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 128–131). Antwerp: PME.Google Scholar
  14. Fujita, T. (2012). Learners’ level of understanding of the inclusion relations of quadrilaterals and prototype phenomenon. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 31(1), 60–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fujita, T., & Jones, K. (2007). Learners’ understanding of the definitions and hierarchical classification of quadrilaterals: towards a theoretical framing. Research in Mathematics Education, 9(1-2), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gal, H., & Linchevski, L. (2010). To see or not to see: analyzing difficulties in geometry from the perspective of visual perception. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 74(2), 163–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Galbraith, P. L. (1981). Aspects of proving: a clinical investigation of process. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). Grounded theory: the discovery of grounded theory. Sociology the Journal of the British Sociological Association, 12, 27–49.Google Scholar
  19. Gutiérrez, A., & Jaime, A. (1999). Preservice primary teachers’ understanding of the concept of altitude of a triangle. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2(3), 253–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haj-Yahya, A. & Hershkowitz, R. (2013). When visual and verbal representations meet the case of geometrical figures. In Lindmeier, A. M. & Heinze, A. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 37th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 409–416). Kiel, Germany: PME.Google Scholar
  21. Haj-Yahya, A., Hershkowitz, R., & Dreyfus, T. (2016). Impacts of students' difficulties in constructing geometric concepts on their proof's understanding and proving processes. In Csíkos, C., Rausch, A., & Szitányi, J. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 40th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 345–352). Szeged, Hungary: PME.Google Scholar
  22. Hershkowitz, R. (1990). Psychological aspects of learning geometry. In P. Nesher & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Mathematics and cognition (pp. 70–95). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jahnke, H. N., & Wamback, R. (2013). Understanding what a proof is: a classroom-approach. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(3), 469–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jones, K. (2000). The student experience of mathematical proof at university level. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 31(1), 53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kim, D., & Ju, M. (2012). A changing trajectory of proof learning in the geometry inquiry classroom. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 44(2), 149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kunimune, S., Fujita, T., & Jones, K. (2010). Strengthening students’ understanding of ‘proof’ in geometry in lower secondary school. In Proceedings of the 6th Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 756–765).Google Scholar
  27. Laborde, C. (2005). The hidden role of the diagrams in students’ construction of meaning in geometry. In J. Kilpatrick, C. Hoyles, & O. Skovsmose (Eds.), Meaning in mathematics education (pp. 159–179). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mariotti, M. A. (2007). Proof and proving in mathematics education. In A. Guitierrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. Martin, T. S., & McCrone, S. S. (2003). Classroom factors related to geometric proof construction ability. The Mathematics Educator, 7(1), 18–31.Google Scholar
  30. Martin, T. S., McCrone, S. M. S., Bower, M. L. W., & Dindyal, J. (2005). The interplay of teacher and student actions in the teaching and learning of geometric proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60, 95–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maymon-Erez, M., & Yerushalmy, M. (2007). “If you can turn a rectangle to a square then you can turn a square to a rectangle…”: on the complexity and importance of psychologizing the dragging tool by young students. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 11(3), 271–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Miyakawa, T., & Herbst, P. (2007). The nature and role of proof when installing theorems: The perspective of geometry teachers. In J. H. Woo, H. C. Lew, K. S. Park, & D. Y. Seo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st conference of the International Group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 3, pp. 281–288). Seoul: PME.Google Scholar
  33. Miyazaki, M., Fujita, T., & Jones, K. (2015). Flow-chart proofs with open problems as scaffolds for learning about geometrical proof. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 47(7), 1211–1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Okazaki, M., & Fujita, T. (2007). Prototype phenomena and common cognitive paths in the understanding of the inclusion relations between quadrilaterals in Japan and Scotland. In J. H. Woo, H. C. Lew, K. S. Park, & D. Y. Seo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 8–41). Seoul: PME.Google Scholar
  35. Parzysz, B. (1988). Knowing vs. seeing: problems of the plane representation of space geometry figures. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 19(1), 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pickreign, J. (2007). Rectangles and rhombi: how well do pre-service teachers know them? Issues in the Undergraduate Mathematics Preparation of School Teachers, 1, 1–7.Google Scholar
  37. Presmeg, N. C. (1992). Prototypes, metaphors, metonymies and imaginative rationality in high school mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23, 595–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Schwarz, B. B., & Hershkowitz, R. (1999). Prototypes: brakes or levers in learning the function concept? The role of computer tools. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 362–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Steenpass, A., & Steinbring, H. (2014). Young students’ subjective interpretations of mathematical diagrams—elements of the theoretical construct “frame-based interpreting competenc”. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 46(1), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tall, D. O., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics, with special reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12(2), 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. van Hiele, P. M., & van Hiele, D. (1958). A method of initiation into geometry. In H. Freudenthal (Ed.), Report on methods of initiation into geometry (pp. 67–80). Groningen: Walters.Google Scholar
  43. Vinner, S. (1991). The role of definitions in the teaching and learning of mathematics. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 65–81). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  44. Vinner, S., & Dreyfus, T. (1989). Images and definitions for the concept of function. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 356–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vinner, S., & Hershkowitz, R. (1980). Concept image and common cognitive paths in the development of some simple geometrical concepts. In R. Karplus (Ed.), Proceedings of the 4th Conference of the International Group for Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 177–184). University of California, Berkeley: PME.Google Scholar
  46. Watson, A., & Mason, J. (2002). Extending example spaces as a learning teaching strategy in mathematics. In A. Cockburn & E. Nardi (Eds.), Proceedings of the Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 377–385). Norwich: PME.Google Scholar
  47. Weber, K. (2001). Student difficulty in constructing proofs: the need for strategic knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 48(1), 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yerushalmy, M., & Naftaliev, E. (2011). Design of interactive diagrams structured upon generic animations. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 16(3), 221–245.Google Scholar
  49. Zaslavsky, O. (2014). Thinking with and through examples. In S. Oesterle, P. Liljedahl, C. Nicol, & D. Allan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of the 38th Conference of the International Group and the 36th Conference of the North American Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 21–34). Vancouver: PME.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Arab Academic Institute for EducationBeit-Berl CollegeKfar-SavaIsrael

Personalised recommendations