Advertisement

Virtual Manipulatives and Students’ Counterexamples During Proving

  • Kotaro KomatsuEmail author
  • Keith Jones
Chapter
  • 106 Downloads
Part of the Mathematics Education in the Digital Era book series (MEDE, volume 14)

Abstract

Counterexamples play a crucial role in the disciplinary practice of mathematics, and experiences with their use can enhance students’ engagement with mathematical practice and their learning of mathematical content. Although it is known that students encounter difficulties in producing and addressing counterexamples, and while there is evidence that incorporating appropriate computer technology into classroom tasks can improve the student experience, task design focusing on counterexamples is scarce in mathematics education research. In this chapter, we address such matters by employing a framework for research on computer-based virtual manipulatives to re-examine tasks that were designed using a set of design principles that included a key role for a dynamic geometry environment. Our analysis shows that the tasks, which were originally based on our theory-informed design principles, are further supported with the conceptual framework on virtual manipulatives manipulatives. We also provide an empirical illustration of the affordances of the tasks with a task-based interview where undergraduate students successfully discovered and addressed counterexamples. An implication for mathematics education research is the importance of ensuring that task design is considered from various theoretical and conceptual perspectives in order to strengthen the theoretical underpinnings of the task design.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We wish to express our thanks to the reviewer for providing helpful comments on the earlier version of this chapter. This study is supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (Nos. 15H05402, 16H02068, and 18K18636).

References

  1. Arzarello, F., Bartolini Bussi, M. G., Leung, A. Y. L., Mariotti, M. A., & Stevenson, I. (2011). Experimental approaches to theoretical thinking: Artefacts and proofs. In G. Hanna & M. de Villiers (Eds.), Proof and proving in mathematics education: The 19th ICMI study (pp. 97–143). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arzarello, F., Olivero, F., Paola, D., & Robutti, O. (2002). A cognitive analysis of dragging practises in Cabri environments. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 34(3), 66–72.Google Scholar
  3. Balacheff, N. (1991). Treatment of refutations: Aspects of the complexity of a constructivist approach to mathematics learning. In E. von Glasersfeld (Ed.), Radical constructivism in mathematics education (pp. 89–110). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. de Villiers, M. (1998). An alternative approach to proof in dynamic geometry. In R. Lehrer & D. Chazan (Eds.), Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space (pp. 369–393). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. de Villiers, M. (2010). Experimentation and proof in mathematics. In G. Hanna, H. N. Jahnke, & H. Pulte (Eds.), Explanation and proof in mathematics: Philosophical and educational perspectives (pp. 205–221). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. D’Mello, S., Lehman, B., Pekrun, R., & Graesser, A. (2014). Confusion can be beneficial for learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gravemeijer, K. (2002). Preamble: From models to modeling. In K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. van Oers., & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolizing, modeling, and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 7–22). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Herbst, P., & Brach, C. (2006). Proving and doing proofs in high school geometry classes: What is it that is going on for students? Cognition and Instruction, 24(1), 73–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hoyles, C., & Küchemann, D. (2002). Students’ understandings of logical implication. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 51(3), 193–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Healy, L. (2000). Identifying and explaining geometrical relationship: Interactions with robust and soft Cabri constructions. In T. Nakahara, & M. Koyama (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp. 103–117). Hiroshima, Japan: PME.Google Scholar
  11. Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (2001). Software tools for geometrical problem solving: Potentials and pitfalls. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(3), 235–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnson, H. L., Coles, A., & Clarke, D. (2017). Mathematical tasks and the student: Navigating “tensions of intensions” between designers, teachers, and students. ZDM: Mathematics Education, 49(6), 813–822.Google Scholar
  13. Jones, K. (2000). Providing a foundation for deductive reasoning: Students’ interpretations when using dynamic geometry software and their evolving mathematical explanations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1–3), 55–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jones, K., & Pepin, B. (2016). Research on mathematics teachers as partners in task design. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 19(2–3), 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ko, Y. Y., & Knuth, E. J. (2013). Validating proofs and counterexamples across content domains: Practices of importance for mathematics majors. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(1), 20–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Komatsu, K. (2017). Fostering empirical examination after proof construction in secondary school geometry. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 96(2), 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Komatsu, K., & Jones, K. (2019). Task design principles for heuristic refutation in dynamic geometry environments. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(4), 801–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Komatsu, K., Tsujiyama, Y., Sakamaki, A., & Koike, N. (2014). Proof problems with diagrams: An opportunity for experiencing proofs and refutations. For the Learning of Mathematics, 34(1), 36–42.Google Scholar
  19. Laborde, C. (2005). Robust and soft constructions: Two sides of the use of dynamic geometry environments. In S. C. Chu, W. C. Yang, & H. C. Lew (Eds.), Proceedings of the tenth Asian technology conference in mathematics (pp. 22–35). South Korea: Advanced Technology Council in Mathematics.Google Scholar
  20. Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Larsen, S., & Zandieh, M. (2008). Proofs and refutations in the undergraduate mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(3), 205–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Manizade, A. G., & Martinovic, D. (2016). Developing an interactive instrument for evaluating teachers’ professionally situated knowledge in geometry and measurement. In P. S. Moyer-Packenham (Ed.), International perspectives on teaching and learning mathematics with virtual manipulatives (pp. 323–342). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Marradez, R., & Gutiérrez, Á. (2000). Proofs produced by secondary school students learning geometry in a dynamic computer environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1), 87–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moyer-Packenham, P. S., & Bolyard, J. J. (2016). Revisiting the definition of a virtual manipulative. In P. S. Moyer-Packenham (Ed.), International perspectives on teaching and learning mathematics with virtual manipulatives (pp. 3–23). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Olivero, F., & Robutti, O. (2007). Measuring in dynamic geometry environments as a tool for conjecturing and proving. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 12(2), 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Osana, H. P., & Duponsel, N. (2016). Manipulatives, diagrams, and mathematics: A framework for future research on virtual manipulatives. In P. S. Moyer-Packenham (Ed.), International perspectives on teaching and learning mathematics with virtual manipulatives (pp. 95–120). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Prediger, S., Bikner-Ahsbahs, A., & Arzarello, F. (2008). Networking strategies and methods for connecting theoretical approaches: First steps towards a conceptual framework. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40(2), 165–178.Google Scholar
  28. Presmeg, N. C. (1986). Visualisation in high school mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 6(3), 42–46.Google Scholar
  29. Prusak, N., Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. B. (2012). From visual reasoning to logical necessity through argumentative design. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(1), 19–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Semadeni, Z. (1984). Action proofs in primary mathematics teaching and in teacher training. For the Learning of Mathematics, 4(1), 32–34.Google Scholar
  31. Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stylianides, G. J., & Stylianides, A. J. (2009). Facilitating the transition from empirical arguments to proof. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(3), 314–352.Google Scholar
  33. Stylianides, G. J., Stylianides, A. J., & Weber, K. (2017). Research on the teaching and learning of proof: Taking stock and moving forward. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 237–266). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  34. Watson, A., & Ohtani, M. (Eds.). (2015). Task design in mathematics education: An ICMI study 22. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Yerushalmy, M., & Chazan, D. (1990). Overcoming visual obstacles with the aid of the Supposer. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21(3), 199–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zaslavsky, O., & Peled, I. (1996). Inhibiting factors in generating examples by mathematics teachers and student teachers: The case of binary operation. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(1), 67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zazkis, R., & Chernoff, E. J. (2008). What makes a counterexample exemplary? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68(3), 195–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of EducationShinshu UniversityNaganoJapan
  2. 2.School of EducationUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations