Abstract
This paper is a case study of the teaching of an undergraduate abstract algebra course, in particular the way the instructor presented proofs. It describes a framework for proof writing based on Selden and Selden (2009) and the work of Alcock (2010) on modes of thought that support proof writing. The paper offers a case study of the teaching of a traditionally-taught abstract algebra course, including showing the range of practice as larger than previously described in research literature. This study describes the aspects of proof writing and modes of thought the instructor modeled for the students. The study finds that she frequently modeled the aspects of hierarchical structure and formal–rhetorical skills, and structural, critical, and instantiation modes of thought. This study also examines the instructor’s attempts to involve the students in the proof writing process during class by asking questions and expecting responses. Finally, the study describes how those questions and responses were part of her proof presentation. The funneling pattern of Steinbring (1989) describes most of the question and answer discussions enacted in the class with most questions requiring a factual response. Yet, the instructional sequence can be also understood as modeling the way an expert in the discipline thinks and, as such, offering a different type of opportunity for student learning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alcock, L. (2010). Mathematicians’ perspectives on the teaching and learning of proof. In F. Hitt, D. Holton, & P. W. Thompson (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education VII (pp. 63–91). Washington DC: MAA.
Andrews, G. (1999). The irrelevance of calculus reform: Ruminations of a sage on the stage. In S. Krantz (Ed.), How to teach mathematics (2nd ed., pp. 157–159). Providence, RI: The American Mathematical Society.
Burgan, M. (2006). In defense of lecturing. Change, 38(6), 30–33.
Burton, L. (1998). The practices of mathematicians: What do they tell us about coming to know mathematics? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 37(2), 121–143.
Committee on the Undergraduate Program in Mathematics. (1971). A compendium of CUPM recommendations: Studies discussions and recommendations by the Committee on the Undergraduate Program in Mathematics of the Mathematical Association of America. Washington, DC: MAA.
Cuoco, A. (2001). Mathematics for teaching. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 48, 168–174.
Dreyfus, T. (1991). Advanced mathematical thinking processes. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 25–41). Dordecht: Kluwer.
Dreyfus, T. (1999). Why Johnny can’t prove. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 40(1), 85–109.
Fischbein, I. (1987). Intuition in science and mathematics. Dordecht: Kluwer.
Harel, G., & Fuller, E. (2009). Contributions toward perspectives on learning and teaching proof. In D. Stylianou, M. Blanton, & E. Knuth (Eds.), Teaching and learning proof across the grades: A K-16 perspective (pp. 355–370). New York: Routledge.
Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (2007). Towards a comprehensive perspective on proof. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematical teaching and learning (pp. 805–842). Washington, DC: NCTM.
Herbel-Eisenmann, B., & Breyfogle, M. L. (2005). Questioning our patterns of questioning. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 10, 484–498.
Hungerford, T. W. (1997). Abstract algebra: An introduction (2nd ed.). Florence, KY: Brooks.
Leron, U., & Dubinsky, E. (1995). An abstract algebra story. The American Mathematical Monthly, 102, 227–242.
Mathematical Association of America. (1990). Challenges for college mathematics: An agenda for the next decade. Washington DC: Author.
McClain, K., & Cobb, P. (2001). An analysis of development of sociomathematical norms in one first-grade classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 236–266.
Mejia-Ramos, J. P., & Inglis, M. (2009). Argumentative and proving activities in mathematics education research. In F. L. Lin, F. J. Hsieh, G. Hanna, & M. de Villiers (Eds.). Proceedings of the ICMI Study 19 conference: Proof and Proving in Mathematics Education (vol. 2, pp. 88–93). Taipei, Taiwan.
Nickerson, S., & Bowers, J. (2008). Examining interaction patterns in college-level mathematics classes: A case study. In M. Carlson & C. Rasmussen (Eds.), Making the connection: Research and teaching in undergraduate mathematics (pp. 179–190). Washington, DC: MAA.
Pollio, H. (1989). Any questions, please? Teaching–learning issues (Vol. 55). Knoxville: University of Tennessee.
Rasmussen, C., & Marrongelle, K. (2006). Pedagogical content tools: Integrating student reasoning and mathematics into instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37, 388–420.
Selden, A., & Selden, J. (2000, Sept. 19). Research question 2: Proof, validation, and trains of thought. Retrieved from http://www.maa.org/t_and_l/sampler/rs_q_2.html
Selden, A., & Selden, J. (2009). Teaching proving by coordinating aspects of proofs with students’ abilities. In: Teaching and learning proof across the grades: A K-16 perspective (pp. 339–354). Reston, VA: NCTM.
Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Silver, E. (1996). Moving beyond learning alone and in silence: Observations from the QUASAR Project concerning some challenges and possibilities of communication in mathematics classrooms. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 127–159). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Speer, N., Smith, J., & Horvath, A. (2010). Collegiate mathematics teaching: An unexamined practice. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 29, 99–114.
Stein, M., & Lane, S. (1996). Instruction tasks and the development of student capacity to think and reason: An analysis of the relationship between teaching and learning in a reform mathematics project. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2, 50–80.
Steinbring, H. (1989). Routine and meaning in the mathematics classroom. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9(1), 24–33.
Thurston, W. P. (1994). On proof and progress in mathematics. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 30(2), 161–177. doi:10.1090/S0273-0979-1994-00502-6. arXiv:math/9404236.
Weber, K. (2004). Traditional instruction in advanced mathematics courses: A case study of one professor’s lectures and proofs in an introductory real analysis course. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 23, 115–133.
Weber, K. (2011). Mathematicians’ perspectives on their pedagogical practice with respect to proof. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology. doi:10.1080/0020739X.2011.622803.
Weber, K., & Alcock, L. J. (2004). Semantic and syntactic proof productions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56, 209–234.
Wood, T. (1998). Alternative patterns of communication in mathematics classes: Funneling or focusing. In H. Steinbring, M. Bartolini Busso, & A. Sierpinska (Eds.), Language and communication in the mathematics classroom (pp. 167–178). Reston, VA: NCTM.
Wu, H. (1999). The joy of lecturing—with a critique of the romantic tradition of education writing. In S. G. Krantz (Ed.), How to teach mathematics (2nd ed., pp. 261–271). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fukawa-Connelly, T.P. A case study of one instructor’s lecture-based teaching of proof in abstract algebra: making sense of her pedagogical moves. Educ Stud Math 81, 325–345 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9407-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9407-9