Blurring distinctions between the empirical and the theoretical? The roles of examples in the proving process
Tipo de documento
Autores
Lista de autores
Healy, Lulu
Resumen
This paper considers the different ways in which students make use of empirical evidence as they attempt to write valid mathematical proofs. Examples of students’ proof constructions related to both algebra and geometry activities are presented to illustrate how that type of evidence can play a variety of different roles in the proving process. For example, it can act as tests of a conjectured conditionality, as generic examples in deductive arguments and as special cases to highlight particular properties when more inductive arguments are developed. It is suggested that involvement in the construction of mathematical objects during computer interaction can encourage students to identify general structures when they manipulate particular cases.
Fecha
2000
Tipo de fecha
Estado publicación
Términos clave
Computadores | Empírica | Otro (álgebra) | Otro (geometría) | Otro (procesos cognitivos) | Teórica
Enfoque
Nivel educativo
Idioma
Revisado por pares
Formato del archivo
Referencias
ARZARELLO, F; Michelerti, C.; Olivero, E and Robutti, O. (1998a). A model for analysing the transition to formal proofs in geometry. Proceedings of the Twenty-second International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education University of Stellenbosch, S. Africa, v. 2, pp. 24-31. (1998b). Dragging in Cabri and Modalities of ‘Transistion from Conjectures to Proofs in Geometry. Proceedings of the Twenty-second International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education University of Stellenbosch, S. Africa. v.2, pp. 32-39. BALACHEEF, N. (1988). Une Étude des Processus de Preuve en Mathématiques. Thèse d’état, Grenoble. BOERO, P; Garuti, R. and Lemut, E (1999). About the Generation of Conditionality of Statements and its Links with Proving. Proceedings of the Twenty-third International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education Haifa, Isreal, v. 2, pp. 137-144. DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION (1995). Mathematics in the National Curriculum London, HMSO. DUVAL, R. (1991). Structure du Raisonnement Déductif et Apprentissage de la Démonstration. Educational Studies in Mathematics, v. 22, pp. 233-261. (1998). Geometry from a cognitive point of view. In: MAMMANA, C. and VILLANI, V (eds.). Perspectives on the Teaching of Geometry for the 21° Century: An ICMI Study. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 37-51. HAREL, G. and Sowder, L. (1998). Students’ Proof Schemes. In: E. DUBINSKY, A. Schoenfeld, and KAPUT, J. (eds.) Research on Collegiate Mathematics Education. USA, American Mathematical Society. HEALY, L. e HOYLES, C. (1998). Justifying and proving in school mathematics. Technical report on the nationwide survey. Institute of Education, Univ. London. (1998). Technical Report on the Nationwide Survey: Justifying and Proving in School Mathematics. Institute of Education, University of London. HOYLES, C. and HEALY, L. (1999). Linking Informal Argumentation with Formal Proof through Computer-Integrated Teaching Experiments. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-third International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education Haifa, Israel. MARIOTTI, A.; BARTOLINI BUSSI, M.; BOERO, P; FERRI, E and GARUTI, R. (1997). Approaching Geometry Theorems in Context: From History and Epistemolgy to Cognition. Proceedings of the Twenty-first International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education Lahti, Finland v 1. pp 180-195. MASON, J. and Pimm, D. (1984). Generic Examples: seeing the General in the Particular. Educational Studies in Mathematics, v. 15, pp. 277-289. ROWLAND, T. (1998). Conviction, Explanation and Generic Examples. Proceedings of the Twenty-second International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education University of Stellenbosch, S. Africa, v. 4, pp. 65-72. SIMON, M. A. (1996). Beyond Inductive and Deductive Reasoning: The Search for a Sense of Knowing. Educational Studies in Mathematics, n. 30, pp. 197-210.