Interjecting Scripting Studies into a Mathematics Education Research Program: The Case of Zero-Divisors and the Zero-Product Property

  • Dov ZazkisEmail author
  • John Paul Cook
Part of the Advances in Mathematics Education book series (AME)


The goals of this chapter are twofold. The first goal is to present our emerging research on students’ understanding of concepts in ring theory, specifically zero-divisors and the zero-product property (ZPP). This naturally includes discussion of our methods and how findings related to the ZPP were obtained and reconfirmed. The second goal, which is the one pertinent to the theme of this book, is to present student-generated scripts as a valuable, low-cost data source which can be used in conjunction with conventional data in order to confirm known results and generate new ones. We discuss the interplay of these data sources and how they have contributed to the progress of our research.


Zero-product property Proving Proof validation Abstract algebra Ring Group 


  1. Alcock, L., & Weber, K. (2005). Proof validation in real analysis: Inferring and checking warrants. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24(2), 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asiala, M., Dubinsky, E., Mathews, D. M., Morics, S., & Oktac, A. (1997). Development of students’ understanding of cosets, normality, and quotient groups. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 16(3), 241–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cook, J. P. (2012). A guided reinvention of ring, integral domain, and field. The University of Oklahoma.Google Scholar
  4. Cook, J. P. (2014). The emergence of algebraic structure: Students come to understand units and zero-divisors. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 45(3), 349–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cuoco, A. (2001). Mathematics for teaching. Notices of the AMS, 48(2), 168–174.Google Scholar
  6. Dubinsky, E., Dautermann, J., Leron, U., & Zazkis, R. (1994). On learning fundamental concepts of group theory. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27(3), 267–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Firestone, W. (1993). Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 22, 16–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gholamazad, S. (2007). Pre-service elementary school teachers’ experiences with the process of creating proofs. 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. 2, pp. 265–272). Seoul, Korea: PME.Google Scholar
  9. Hazzan, O. (1999). Reducing abstraction level when learning abstract algebra concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 40(1), 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Koichu, B., & Zazkis, R. (2013). Decoding a proof of Fermat’s little theorem via script writing. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(3), 364–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Larsen, S. (2009). Reinventing the concepts of group and isomorphism: The case of Jessica and Sandra. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 28(2), 119–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Larsen, S. (2013). A local instructional theory for the guided reinvention of the group and isomorphism concepts. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(4), 712–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Larsen, S., Johnson, E., & Bartlo, J. (2013). Designing and scaling up an innovation in abstract algebra. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(4), 693–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Larsen, S., & Zandieh, M. (2008). Proofs and refutations in the undergraduate mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(3), 205–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leron, U., Hazzan, O., & Zazkis, R. (1995). Learning group isomorphism: A crossroads of many concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29(2), 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Simon, M. A., & Tzur, R. (2004). Explicating the role of mathematical tasks in conceptual learning: An elaboration of the hypothetical learning trajectory. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Simpson, A., & Stehlíková, N. (2006). Apprehending mathematical structure: A case study of coming to understand a commutative ring. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(3), 347–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 267–306). Hoboken, NJ: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  21. Tall, D., de Lima, R. N., & Healy, L. (2014). Evolving a three-world framework for solving algebraic equations in the light of what a student has met before. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 34, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Thompson, P. W. (2008). Conceptual analysis of mathematical ideas: Some spadework at the foundations of mathematics education. In Proceedings of the annual meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 45–64). Mexico: PME Morelia.Google Scholar
  23. Usiskin, Z. (1988). Conceptions of school algebra and uses of variables. The Ideas of Algebra, K-12(8), 19.Google Scholar
  24. Weber, K. (2001). Student difficulty in constructing proofs: The need for strategic knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 48(1), 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zazkis, D. (2014). Proof-scripts as a lens for exploring students’ understanding of odd/even functions. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 35, 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zazkis, D., & Zazkis, R. (2016). Prospective teachers’ conceptions of proof comprehension: Revisiting a proof of the Pythagorean theorem. International Journal of Mathematics and Science Education, 14(4), 777–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zazkis, R., Sinclair, N., & Liljedahl, P. (2013). Lesson Play in Mathematics Education: A tool for research and professional development. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zazkis, R., & Zazkis, D. (2014). Script writing in the mathematics classroom: Imaginary conversations on the structure of numbers. Research in Mathematics Education, 16(1), 54–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Oklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA

Personalised recommendations