# Proof, Mathematical Problem-Solving, and Explanation in Mathematics Teaching

Chapter

## Abstract

We expect mathematical proofs to explain why the propositions in question are true or why certain mathematical phenomena occur in certain situations. In this paper, I reexamine explanation-building processes by taking them as problem-solvers’ understanding processes and by referring to research that has analyzed the relationships between explorations, understandings, and explanations in mathematical problem-solving. I discuss some interactive features among these components during problem-solving processes by introducing some examples and referring to that research. I then use those features to offer an elaborated conception of explanation-building processes that takes into consideration local explanations, full explanations, and the direct and indirect relationships between local and full explanations.

## Keywords

Problem Solver Problem Situation Full Explanation Mathematical Explanation Local Explanation
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

## References

1. Bergé, A. (2006). Convergence of numerical sequences: a commentary on “The Vice: Some historically inspired and proof generated steps to limits of sequences” by R. P. Burn. Educational Studies in Mathematics 61, 395–402.
2. Brown, J. R. (1997). Proofs and pictures. British Journal for Philosophy of Science 48, 161–180.
3. Corfield D. (1998). Beyond the methodology of mathematics research programmes. Philosophia Mathematica 6, 272–301.Google Scholar
4. De Villiers M. (2004). Using dynamic geometry to expand mathematics teachers’ understanding of proof. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 35(5), 703–724.
5. De Villiers M. (2007). A hexagon result and its generalization via proof. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast 4(2), 188–192.Google Scholar
6. De Villiers, M. (2008). The role and function of experimentation in mathematics. In this volume.Google Scholar
7. Epple M. (1998). Topology, matter, and space I: topological notions in 19th-century natural philosophy. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 52(4), 297–392.
8. Ernest P. (1997). The legacy of Lakatos: reconceptualising the philosophy of mathematics. Philosophia Mathematica 5,116–134.Google Scholar
9. Giaquinto M. (2005). Mathematical activity. In: Mancosu P, Jørgensen KF, Pedersen SA (eds) Visualization, explanation and reasoning in mathematics. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 75–87.
10. Hanna G. (1995). Challenges to the importance of proof. For the Learning of Mathematics 15(3), 42–49.Google Scholar
11. Hersh R. (1997). Prove – once more and again. Philosophia Mathematica 5, 153–165.Google Scholar
12. Inglis M. Mejia-Ramos J. P., Simpson A. (2007). Modelling mathematical argumentation: the importance of qualification. Educational Studies in Mathematics 66(1), 3–21.
13. Klamkin M. (1988). USA Mathematical Olympiads, 1972–1986. MAA, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
14. Kvasz L. (2002). Lakatos’ methodology between logic and dialectic. In: Kampis G, Kvasz L, Stöltzner M. (eds) Appraising Lakatos: mathematics, methodology and the man. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 211–241.Google Scholar
15. Lester F. K. Jr, Kehle P. E. (2003). From problem solving to modeling: the evolution of thinking about research on complex mathematical activity. In: Lesh R, Doerr HM (eds) Beyond constructivism: models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 501–517.Google Scholar
16. Neuman Y., Leibowitz L., Schwarz B. (2000). Patterns of verbal mediation during problem solving: a sequential analysis of self-explanation. Journal of Experimental Education 68(3), 197–213.
17. Nunokawa K. (1994a). Improving diagrams gradually: one approach to using diagramsin problem solving. For the Learning of Mathematics 14(1),34–38.Google Scholar
18. Nunokawa K. (1994b). Solver’s structures of a problem situation and their global restructuring. Journal of Mathematical Behavior 13(3), 275–297.
19. Nunokawa K. (1996). A continuity of solver’s structures: earlier activities facilitating the generation of basic ideas. Tsukuba Journal of Educational Study in Mathematics 15, 113–122.Google Scholar
20. Nunokawa K. (1997). Physical models in mathematical problem solving: a case of a tetrahedron problem. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 28(6), 871–882.
21. Nunokawa K. (1998). Empirical and autonomical aspects of school mathematics. Tsukuba Journal of Educational Study in Mathematics 17, 205–217.Google Scholar
22. Nunokawa K. (2000). Heuristic strategies and probing problem situations. In: Carrillo J, Contreras LC (eds) Problem-solving in the beginning of the 21st century: an international overview from multiple perspectives and educational levels. Hergué, Huelva, Spain, pp 81–117.Google Scholar
23. Nunokawa K. (2001). Interaction between subgoals and understanding of problem situations in mathematical problem solving. Journal of Mathematical Behavior 20, 187–205.
24. Nunokawa K. (2004). Solvers’ making of drawings in mathematical problem solving and their understanding of the problem situations. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 35(2), 173–183.
25. Nunokawa K. (2005). Mathematical problem solving and learning mathematics: what we expect students to obtain. Journal of Mathematical Behavior 24, 325–340.
26. Nunokawa K. (2006). Using drawings and generating information in mathematical problem solving. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2(3), 33–54.Google Scholar
27. Nunokawa K., Fukuzawa T. (2002). Questions during problem solving with dynamic geometric software and understanding problem situations. Proceedings of the National Science Council, Republic of China, Part D: Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education 12(1), 31–43.Google Scholar
28. Pedemonte B. (2007). How can the relationship between argumentation and proof be analyzed? Educational Studies in Mathematics 66, 23–41.
29. Rav Y. (1999). Why do we prove theorems? Philosophia Mathematica 7(1), 5–41.Google Scholar
30. Reichel H.-C. (2002). Lakatos and aspects of mathematics education. In: Kampis G., Kvasz L., Stöltzner M. (eds) Appraising Lakatos: mathematics, methodology and the man. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 255–260.Google Scholar
31. Steiner M. (1978). Mathematical explanation. Philosophical Studies 34, 135–151.
32. Steiner M. (1983). The philosophy of mathematics of Imre Lakatos. Journal of Philosophy 80, 502–521.
33. Yackel, E. (2001). Explanation, justification and argumentation in mathematics classrooms. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceeding of the conference of the International Group of for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 9–24). Utrecht, The Netherlands:PME.Google Scholar