Abstract
Teaching mathematical proof is a goal in most mathematical curricula. This target is sometimes explicitly stated, that is “mathematical proof” can appear as a chapter in the textbook, or it is sometimes expressed as a general aim of the teaching. In this latter case, the aim is the training in the construction and the formulation of deductive reasoning, “mathematical proof” not being named as such. Actually, that is the situation at the present time in France: the last French programmes1 (1985) for the eighth grade state that students should be trained progressively to construct deductive reasoning, and this training must be intensive in the ninth grade. The situation is the same in other countries, like in Québec:
“To develop pupils’ logical thinking by bringing them to structure their reasoning [...] It is therefore advisable to demand that the pupils’ problem-solving is based on logical and structured reasoning.”
(Objectif du programme2 du secondaire V, Québec, 1984)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Arsac, G and Mante, M.: 1983, ‘De “problèmes ouverts” dans nos classes du premier cycle, Petix x 2, 5–33.
Bachelard, G.: 1938, La formation de l’esprit scientifique, Vrin, 1975, Paris.
Balacheff, N.: 1982, ‘Preuve et démonstration au collège’, Recherches en didactique des mathématiques 3 (3), 261–304.
Balacheff, N.: 1988, ‘Une étude des processus de preuve en mathématiques chez des élèves de collège’, Thèse d’état, Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble.
Balacheff, N.: 1988. ‘Aspects of Proof in Pupils’ Practice of School Mathematics’, in Pimm, D. (ed.), Mathematics, Teachers and Children, Hodder and Stoughton, London, pp. 216–235.
Bell, A.: 1976, ‘The Learning of General Mathematical Strategies’, Ph.D. University of Nottingham.
Bishop, A.J. 1988, Mathematical Enculturation: A Cultural Perspective on Mathematics Education, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Bourdieu, P.: 1980, Le sens pratique, Edition de Minuit, Paris.
Braconne, A.: 1987, Compréhension de la démonstration en géométrie chez les profes-
seurs et les élèves au secondaire,Maitrise ès Art, Université de Laval, Québec.
Brousseau, G.: 1983, ‘Les obstacles épistémologiques et les problèmes en mathématiques’ Recherches en didactique des mathématiques, 4(2), 164–198
Brousseau, G.: 1986, ‘Basic Theory and Methods in the Didactics of Mathematics’, in Verstapen, P.F.L. (ed.), Second Conference on Systematic Co-operation Between Theory and Practice in Mathematics Education, Instituut voor Leerplanontwikkeling, Enschede, pp. 109–161.
Capponi, M.T et al.: 1986 Apprentissage du raisonnement, IREM de Grenoble, Grenoble.
Cobb, P.: 1986, ‘Contexts, Goals, Beliefs, and Learning Mathematics’ For the Learning of Mathematics 6(2), 2–9.
Cooney, T.J.: 1985, ‘A Beginning Teacher’s View of Problem Solving’ Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 16 324–336.
Fawcett, H.P.: 1938, The Nature of Proof. 1938 NCTM Year Book. Columbia University Teachers College, New York.
Galbraith, P.L.: 1979, Pupils Proving, Shell Center for Mathematics Education, University of Nottingham.
Gaud, D. and Guichard, J.P.: 1984, ‘Apprentissage de la démonstration’, Petit x 4, 5–25.
Hanna, G.: 1983, Rigorous Proof in Mathematics Education, Curriculum Series, 48, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto.
Inhelder, B. and Caprona, D.: 1985, ‘Constructivisme et création de nouveauté’, Archives de psychologie 53 (204), 7–18.
Lakatos, I.: 1976, Proofs and Refutations,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lampert, M.: 1988, ‘The Teacher’s Role in Reinventing the Meaning of Mathematical
Knowing in the Classroom, in Proceedings of the PME-NA,pp. 433–480.
Martin, G. and Harel, G.: 1989, ‘Proof Frames of Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 20(1), 41–51.
Moeschler, J.: 1985, Argumentation et conversation, Hatier-Credif, Paris.
NCTM: 1989, Curriculum and Evaluation Standard for School Mathematics, NCTM, Reston.
Oléron, P.: 1984, L’argumentation, PUF, Paris.
Perelman, C.: 1970, Le champ de l’argumentation, Presses Universitaires, Bruxelles. Popper, K.R.: 1979, Objective Knowledge, Revised Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Schoenfeld, A.H.: 1988, ‘When Good Teaching Leads to Bad Results: The Disaster of Well Taught Mathematics Courses’, Educational Psychologist 23 (2)
Schoenfeld, A.H.: 1990, ‘On Mathematics as Sense-Making: An Informal Attack on the Unfortunate Divorce of Formal and Informal Mathematics’, in Perkins, D.N., Segal, J. and Voss, J. (eds.), Informal Reasoning in Education, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp. 311–343.
Senk, S.: 1985, ‘How Well Do Students Write Geometry Proofs? Mathematics Teacher, 74 19–26.
Usiskin, Z.: 1982 Van Hiele Levels and Achievement in Secondary School Geometry, CDASSG Project, SE 038 813.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1991 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Balacheff, N. (1991). The Benefits and Limits of Social Interaction: The Case of Mathematical Proof. In: Bishop, A.J., Mellin-Olsen, S., Van Dormolen, J. (eds) Mathematical Knowledge: Its Growth Through Teaching. Mathematics Education Library, vol 10. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2195-0_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2195-0_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-4095-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-2195-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive