Advertisement

Reasoning by Equivalence: The Potential Contribution of an Automatic Proof Checker

  • Christopher SangwinEmail author
Chapter
  • 112 Downloads
Part of the Mathematics Education in the Digital Era book series (MEDE, volume 14)

Abstract

Reasoning by equivalence, a form of line-by-line algebraic reasoning, is the most important single form of reasoning in school mathematics. In this chapter I define reasoning by equivalence and examine the role of reasoning by equivalence in mathematical proof. I base the discussion on an examination of the extent to which students are currently asked to “prove”, “show” or “justify” in high-stakes national examinations. I then report research into how students go about solving such problems on paper. These results inform the design of an automatic proof checker within the STACK software which assesses students’ responses. I report on the use of this software with students. Finally I discuss the implications of this work for what constitutes mathematical “proof” at school level, and how this might be taught and learned online.

Keywords

Automatic assessment Proof checker Algebra Mathematics education 

References

  1. Adams, W. W., & Loustaunau, P. (1994). An introduction to Grobner bases (Vol. 3). Providence, Rhode Island: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
  2. Back, R. J., Mannila, L., & Wallin, S. (2010). It takes me longer, but I understand better’—Student feedback on structured derivations. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 41(5), 575–593.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00207391003605221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beeson, M. (1998). Design principles of Mathpert: Software to support education in algebra and calculus. In N. Kajler (Ed.), Computer-human interaction in symbolic computation (pp. 89–115). Vienna, Austria: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-6461-7.Google Scholar
  4. Beeson, M. (2004). The mechanization of mathematics. In C. Teuscher (Ed.), Alan Turing: Life and legacy of a great thinker (pp. 77–134). Berlin, Germany: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-05642-4.Google Scholar
  5. Bernardo, G., & Carmen, B. (2009). The ambiguity of the sign Open image in new window . In Proceedings of CERME6, Lyon, France, Working Group 4 (pp. 509–518).Google Scholar
  6. Boesen, J., Lithner, J., & Palm, T. (2010). The relation between types of assessment tasks and the mathematical reasoning students use. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(1), 89–105.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9242-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonnycastle, J. F. (1836). An introduction to algebra (16th ed.). London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
  8. Boole, G. (1847). The mathematical analysis of logic, being an essay towards a calculus of deductive reasoning. Cambridge, UK: MacMillan, Barclay, & Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Brancker, T., Pell, J., & Rahn, J. H. (1668). An introduction to algebra. London, UK: Printed by W.G. for Moses Pitt.Google Scholar
  10. Bundy, A. (1983). The computer modelling of mathematical reasoning. London, UK: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bundy, A. (2013). The interaction of representation and reasoning. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 469(2157).  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2013.0194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burkhardt, H. (1987). What you test is what you get. In I. Wirszup & R. Streit (Eds.), The dynamics of curriculum change in developments in school mathematics worldwide. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project.Google Scholar
  13. Durell, C. V. (1930). New algebra for schools (3 Vols.). London, UK: Bell & Sons.Google Scholar
  14. Euler, L. (1822). Elements of algebra (3rd ed.). London, UK: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme and Co. (Translated from the French, with the notes of M. Bernoulli and the Additions of M. de La Grange by J. Hewlett).Google Scholar
  15. Heeren, B., Jeuring, J., & Gerdes, A. (2010). Specifying rewrite strategies for interactive exercises. Mathematics in Computer Science, 3(3), 349–370.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11786-010-0027-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kirshner, D., & Awtry, T. (2004, July). Visual salience of algebraic transformations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(4), 224–257.  https://doi.org/10.2307/30034809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leibniz, G. (1966). Logical papers: A selection. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Levenson, E. (2012, June). Teachers’ knowledge of the nature of definitions: The case of the zero exponent. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(2), 209–219.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2011.12.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lund, T. (1852). The elements of algebra designed for the use of students in the university (14th ed.). London, UK: Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans.Google Scholar
  20. Maxwell, E. A. (1959). Fallacies in mathematics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Newman, M. H. A., et al. (1957). The teaching of algebra in sixth forms: A report prepared for the Mathematical Association. London, UK: G. Bell and Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
  22. Nicaud, J. F., Bouhineau, D., & Chaachoua, H. (2004). Mixing microworlds and CAS features in building computer systems that help students learn algebra. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9(2), 169–211.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:IJCO.0000040890.20374.37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Northrop, E. P. (1945). Riddles in mathematics: A book of paradoxes. London, UK: The English Universities Press.Google Scholar
  24. Polya, G. (1962). Mathematical discovery: On understanding, learning, and teaching problem solving. London, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. Prank, R. (2011). What toolbox is necessary for building exercise environments for algebraic transformations. The Electronic Journal of Mathematics and Technology, 5(3).Google Scholar
  26. Sangwin, C. J. (2013). Computer aided assessment of mathematics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Sangwin, C. J. (2015, July). An audited elementary algebra. The Mathematical Gazette, 99(545), 290–297.  https://doi.org/10.1017/mag.2015.37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sangwin, C. J. (2016). Undergraduates’ attempts at reasoning by equivalence in elementary algebra . In Didactics of Mathematics in Higher Education as a Scientific Discipline: Conference Proceedings (pp. 335–341). Universität Kassel, Leuphana Universität Lneburg, Universität Paderborn.Google Scholar
  29. Sangwin, C. J., & Köcher, N. (2016). Automation of mathematics examinations. Computers and Education, 94, 215–227.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sangwin, C. J., & Ramsden, P. (2007). Linear syntax for communicating elementary mathematics. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 42(9), 902–934.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsc.2007.07.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tirosh, D., & Evan, R. (1997). To define or not to define: The case of \((-8)^{\frac{1}{3}}\). Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33(3), 321–330.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:100291660.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of MathematicsUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations