Abstract
This chapter offers a multi-layered analysis of one specific category of students’ example-based reasoning , which has received little attention in research literature so far: systematic exploration of examples. It involves dividing a conjecture’s domain into disjoint sub-domains and testing a single example in each sub-domain. I apply four theoretical frameworks to analyze student data: The Mathematical-logical framework for the interplay between examples and proof, Proof schemes framework, Transfer-in-pieces framework, and the Theory of instructional situations . Taken together, these frameworks allow to examine the data from mathematical, cognitive and social perspectives, thus broadening and deepening the insights into students thinking about the relationship between examples and proving. Implications for teaching and learning of proof in school mathematics are discussed.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See Nelsen (1993) for several elegant proofs without words of the mediant property.
- 2.
All names are pseudonyms.
- 3.
According to the framework, understanding is operationalized as consistent application of inferences that are aligned with conventional mathematical knowledge.
References
Alcock, L., & Weber, K. (2010). Referential and syntactic approaches to proving: Case studies from a transition-to-proof course. In F. Hitt, D. Holton, & P. Thompson (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education VII (pp. 93–114). Washington: AMS.
Balacheff, N. (1988). Aspects of proof in pupils’ practice of school mathematics. In D. Pimm (Ed.), Mathematics, teachers and children (pp. 216–235). London, England: Hodder & Stoughton.
Bell, A. W. (1976). A study of pupils’ proof-explanations in mathematical situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 7(1–2), 23–40.
Bishop, A. J. (2001). Educating student teachers about values in mathematics education. In F.-L. Lin & T. J. Cooney (Eds.), Making sense of mathematics teacher education (pp. 233–246). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Boero, P., & Bazzini, L. (2004). Inequalities in mathematics education: The need for complementary perspectives. In M. J. Høines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 139–143). Bergen, Norway.
Borasi, R. (1994). Capitalizing on errors as “springboards for inquiry”: A teaching experiment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(2), 166–208.
Buchbinder, O. (2010). The role of examples in establishing the validity of universal and existential mathematical statements. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. Technion, Haifa (in Hebrew).
Buchbinder, O., Chazan, D., & Fleming, E. (2015). Insights into the school mathematics tradition from solving linear equations. For the Learning of Mathematics, 35(2), 1–8.
Buchbinder, O., & Zaslavsky, O. (2009). A framework for understanding the status of examples in establishing the validity of mathematical statements. In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou, & C. Sakonidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 225–232). Thessaloniki, Greece.
Buchbinder, O., & Zaslavsky, O. (2011). Is this a coincidence? The role of examples in fostering a need for proof. ZDM—The International Journal of Mathematics Education, 43(2), 269–281.
Cobb, P. (2007). Putting philosophy to work. Coping with multiple theoretical perspectives. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 3–38). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Cuoco, A., et al. (2013). CME algebra 1 common core. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Ellis, A. E., Lockwood, E., Williams, C. C. W., Dogan, M. F., & Knuth, E. (2013). Middle school students’ example use in conjecture exploration and justification. In L. R. Van Zoest, J. J. Lo, & J. L. Kratky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 135–142). Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University.
Harel, G. (2007). The DNR system as a conceptual framework for curriculum development and instruction. In R. Lesh, J. Kaput, E., & Hamilton (Eds.), Foundations for the future in mathematics education (pp. 263–280). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (1998). Students’ proof schemes: Results from exploratory studies. In A. Schoenfeld, J. Kaput, & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education III (pp. 234–283). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (2007). Toward comprehensive perspectives on the learning and teaching of proof. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 805–842). NCTM. Reston, VA: Information Age Pub. Inc.
Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (2000). A study of proof conceptions in algebra. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(4), 396–428.
Herbst, P., & Chazan, D. (2012). On the instructional triangle and sources of justification for actions in mathematics teaching. ZDM—The International Journal of Mathematics Education, 44(5), 601–612.
Leron, U., & Hazzan, O. (2009). Intuitive vs. analytical thinking: four perspectives. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(3), 263–278.
Leron, U., & Zaslavsky, O. (2013). Generic proving: Reflections on scope and method. For the Learning of Mathematics, 33(3), 24–30.
Lockwood, E., Ellis, A. B., & Lynch, A. G. (2016). Mathematicians’ example-related activity when exploring and proving conjectures. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 2(2), 165–196.
Mason, J., & Pimm, D. (1984). Generic examples: Seeing the general through the particular. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15(3), 277–289.
Nelsen, R. B. (1993). Proofs without words: Exercises in visual thinking. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
Ron, G., Dreyfus, T., & Hershkowitz, R. (2010). Partially correct constructs illuminate students’ inconsistent answers. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(1), 65–87.
Rowland, T., & Zazkis, R. (2013). Contingency in the mathematics classroom: Opportunities taken and opportunities missed. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 13(2), 137–153.
Sandefur, J., Mason, J., Stylianides, G. J., & Watson, A. (2013). Generating and using examples in the proving process. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(3), 323–340.
Smith, J. P., diSessa, A., & Rochelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163.
Stylianides, G. J., & Stylianides, A. J. (2010). Mathematics for teaching: A form of applied mathematics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 161–172.
Wagner, J. E. (2006). Transfer in pieces. Cognition and Instruction, 24(1), 1–71.
Wagner, J. E. (2010). A transfer-in-pieces consideration of the perception of structure in the transfer of learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(4), 443–479.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Buchbinder, O. (2018). Systematic Exploration of Examples as Proof: Analysis with Four Theoretical Frameworks. In: Stylianides, A., Harel, G. (eds) Advances in Mathematics Education Research on Proof and Proving. ICME-13 Monographs. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70996-3_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70996-3_18
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-70995-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-70996-3
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)