How Do Pre-service Teachers Rate the Conviction, Verification and Explanatory Power of Different Kinds of Proofs?

Part of the ICME-13 Monographs book series (ICME13Mo)


In the opening session of a course for first-year secondary (lower track secondary school) pre-service teachers, the participants were asked to rate the conviction , verification and explanatory power of four different kinds of proofs (a generic proof with numbers, a generic proof in the context of figurate numbers , a proof in the context of figurate numbers using “geometric variables” and the formal proof). In this study, students’ ratings express their preference for the formal proof concerning the aspects conviction, verification, and explanatory power. The other proofs achieve significantly lower ratings, especially in the case of conviction . The results may open the discussion about the use of generic proofs, the use of figurate numbers and the concept of proofs that explain.


Transition to university Generic proof Figurate numbers Function of proof 


  1. Biehler, R., & Kempen, L. (2013). Students’ use of variables and examples in their transition from generic proof to formal proof. In B. Ubuz, C. Haser, & M. A. Mariotti (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 86–95). Ankara: Middle East Technical University.Google Scholar
  2. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics: Didactique des mathématiques 1970–1990 (N. Balacheff, M. Cooper, R. Sutherland, & V. Warfield, Eds. & Trans.). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. de Villiers, M. (1990). The role and function of proof in mathematics. Pythagoras, 24, 17–24.Google Scholar
  4. Diezmann, C., & English, L. (2001). Promoting the use of diagrams as tools for thinking. In A. Cuoco & F. R. Curcio (Eds.), The roles of representation in school mathematics (pp. 77–89). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  5. Dreyfus, T. (2000). Some views on proofs by teachers and mathematicians. In A. Gagatsis (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd Mediterranean Conference on Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 11–25). Nikosia: The University of Cyprus.Google Scholar
  6. Dreyfus, T., Nardi, E., & Leikin, R. (2012). Forms of proof and proving in the classrom. In G. Hanna & M. de Villiers (Eds.), Proof and proving in mathematics education: The 19th ICMI study (pp. 191–214). Heidelberg: Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar
  7. Duval, R. (1990). Pour une approche cognitive de I’argumentation. Annales de Didactique et de Sciences Cognitives, 3, 195–221.Google Scholar
  8. Duval, R. (2007). Cognitive functioning and the understanding of mathematical processes of proof. In P. Boero (Ed.), Theorems in school: From history, epistemology and cognition to classroom practice (pp. 137–161). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Fischbein. E., & Kedem, L. (1982). Proof and certitude in the development of mathematical thinking. In A. Vennandel (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 128–131). Antwerp.Google Scholar
  10. Flores, A. (2002). Geometric representations in the transition from arithmetic to algebra. In F. Hitt (Ed.), Representation and mathematics visualization (pp. 9–30). North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  11. Gravemeijer, K., & Cobb, P. (2006). Design research from the learning design perspective. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational Design research: The design, development and evaluation of programs, processes and products (pp. 45–85). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Hanna, G. (1989). Proofs that prove and proofs that explain. In G. Vergnaud, J. Rogalski, & M. Artigue (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 45–51). Paris: PME.Google Scholar
  13. Hanna, G. (1995). Challenges to the importance of proof. For the Learning of Mathematics, 15(3), 42–49.Google Scholar
  14. Hanna, G. (2017). Reflections on proof as explanation. Proceedings of the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education.Google Scholar
  15. Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (2000). A study of proof conceptions in algebra. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(4), 396–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hemmi, K. (2006). Approaching proof in a community of mathematical practice. Doctoral Thesis, Stockholm University, Stockholm. Retrieved from:
  17. Hersh, R. (1993). Proving is convincing and explaining. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24, 389–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hoffmann, M. (2005). Erkenntnisentwicklung. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.Google Scholar
  19. Jahnke, H. N. (1984). Anschauung und Begründung in der Schulmathematik Beiträge zum Mathematikunterricht (pp. 32–41). Bad Salzdethfurt.Google Scholar
  20. Karunakaran, S., Freeburn, B., Konuk, N., & Arbaugh, F. (2014). Improving preservice secondary mathematics teachers’ capability with generic example proofs. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 2(2), 158–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kempen, L., & Biehler, R. (2016). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of generic proofs in elementary number theory. In K. Krainer & N. Vondrová (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 135–141). Prague: CERME.Google Scholar
  22. Kiel, E. (1999). Erklären als didaktisches Handeln. Würzburg: Ergon-Verlag.Google Scholar
  23. Knuth, E. (2002). Teachers’ conceptions of proof in the context of secondary school mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5(1), 61–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Martin, W. G., & Harel, G. (1989). Proof frames of preservice elementary teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mason, J., & Pimm, D. (1984). Generic examples: Seeing the general in the particular. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15, 277–289. Google Scholar
  26. Reid, D. A., & Knipping, C. (2010). Proof in mathematics education. Research, learning and teaching. Rotterdam: Sense Publisher.Google Scholar
  27. Reid, D. A., & Vallejo Vargas, E. A. (2017). When is a generic argument a proof? In Proceedings of the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education.Google Scholar
  28. Rowland, T. (1998). Conviction, explanation and generic examples. In A. Olivier & K. Newstead (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the International Group for Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 65–72). Stellenbosch, South Africa: University of Stellenbosch.Google Scholar
  29. Rowland, T. (2002). Generic proofs in number theory. In S. R. Campbell & R. Zazkis (Eds.), Learning and teaching number theory (pp. 157–183). Westport, Connecticut: Ablex.Google Scholar
  30. Stjernfelt, F. (2000). Diagrams as centerpiece of a Peircean epistemology. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 36(3), 357–384.Google Scholar
  31. Stylianides, A. J. (2007). The notion of proof in the context of elementary school mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 65(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stylianides, G. J. (2010). Engaging secondary students in reasoning and proving. Mathematics Teaching, 219, 39–44.Google Scholar
  33. Stylianides, A. J., & Stylianides, G. J. (2009). Proof constructions and evaluations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(2), 237–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tabach, M., Barkai, R., Tsamir, P., Tirosh, D., Dreyfus, T., & Levenson, E. (2010). Verbal justification—Is it a proof? Secondary school teachers’ perceptions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(6), 1071–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Weber, K. (2014). Proof as a cluster concept. In C. Nicol, S. Oesterle, P. Liljedahl, & D. Allan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education and the 36th Conference of the North American Chapter of the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 5, pp. 353–360). Vancouver, Canada: PME.Google Scholar
  36. Weber, K., & Mejia-Ramos, J. P. (2015). On relative and absolute conviction in mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 35(2), 15–21.Google Scholar
  37. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of PaderbornPaderbornGermany

Personalised recommendations