Characterization of students formal-proof construction in mathematics learning

Article Sidebar

PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21924/cst.1.2.2016.2

Main Article Content

Syamsuri Syamsuri
University of Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2109-0696
Purwanto Purwanto
State University of Malang
Subanji Subanji
State University of Malang
Santi Irawati
State University of Malang

Abstract

Formal proof is a deductive process beginning from some explicitly quantified definitions and other mathematical properties to get a conclusion. Characteristics of student formal-proof construction are required to identify the appropriate treatment can be determined. The purpose of this study was to describe the characteristics of the construction of formal-proof based overview of the proof structure and conceptual understanding that the student possessed. The data used in this article were obtained from the 3-step processes: students are asked to write down the proof of proving-question, they are asked about the knowledge required in constructing proof using questionnaire, and then they are interviewed. The results showed that formal-proof construction could be modeled by the Quadrant-Model. First Quadrant describes correct construction of formal-proof, Second Quadrant describes insufficiencies concept in construction formal-proof, Third Quadrant indicates insufficiencies concept and proof-structure in construction formal-proof and Fourth Quadrant describes incorrect proof-structure in construction of formal-proof. This model could give consideration on how to help students who are in Quadrant II, III, and IV to be able to construct a formal proof like Quadrant I.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Syamsuri, S., Purwanto, P., Subanji, S., & Irawati, S. (2016). Characterization of students formal-proof construction in mathematics learning. Communications in Science and Technology, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.21924/cst.1.2.2016.2
Issue
Vol. 1 No. 2 (2016)
Section
Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright

Open Access authors retain the copyrights of their papers, and all open access articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited.

The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, and so forth in this publication, even if not specifically identified, does not imply that these names are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations.

While the advice and information in this journal are believed to be true and accurate on the date of its going to press, neither the authors, the editors, nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

1. D.O. Tall, et al. The Cognitive Development of Proof. In In Hanna, G. and De Villiers, M. (Eds). ICMI 19: Proof Proving Mathematics Education (2011) 13–49.
2. D.O. Tall. Differing Modes of Proof and Belief in Mathematics International Conference on Mathematics: Understanding Proving and Proving to Understand (2002) 91–107.
3. R,C. Moore. Making the transition to formal proof. Educ. Stud. Math. 27 (1994) 249-266.
4. J. Knapp. Learning to prove in order to prove to learn. [online] : Retrieved from URL: http://mathpost.asu.edu/~sjgm/issues/2005_spring/ SJGM_knapp.pdf.
5. A. Selden, K. McKee and J. Selden. Affect, behavioural schemas and the proving process. Int. J. Math. Educ.Sci. Tech. 41 (2010) 199–215
6. L. Sowder and G. Harel. Case studies of mathematics majors’ proof understanding, production, and appreciation. Can. J. Sci. Math. Tech. Educ. 3(2) (2003) 251-267.
7. M.M.F. Pinto and D.O. Tall.. Student constructions of formal theory: giving and extracting meaning. In O. Zaslavsky (Ed.), Proceedings of the 23rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education Vol. 4 (1999) 65–73.
8. K. Weber. Traditional instruction in advanced mathematics courses: A case study of one professor’s lectures and proofs in an introductory real analysis course. J. Math. Behav. 23 (2004) 115–133.
9. L. Alcock and K. Weber. Semantic and syntactic proof productions. Educ. Stud. Math. 56 (2004) 209-234.
10. J.C. Smith. A Framework for Characterizing the Transition to Advanced Mathematical Thinking. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the North America Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education Vol. 1 (2004) 163-171
11. J. Sweller. Human Cognitive Architecture. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merril, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology pp 369–381. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 2008.
12. J. Sweller, P. Ayres, and S. Kalyuga. Cognitive Load Theory: Explorations in the Learning Sciences , Instructional Systems and Performance Technologies. London: Springer. 2011.
13. J. Sweller. Cognitive Load Theory. In J. P. Mestre & B. H. Ross (Eds.), The Psychology of Learning and Cognition in Education (2011) 37–74.
14. J. Sweller and S. Sweller. Natural information processing systems. Evol. Psych. 4, (2006) 434–458.
15. F. Paas, A. Renkl and J. Sweller. Cognitive Load Theory and Instuctional Design: Recent Development. Educ. Psych. 38 (1) (2003) 1-4.
16. F. Paas, T. van Gog, and J. Sweller. Cognitive load theory: New conceptualizations, specifications, and integrated research perspectives. Educ. Psych. Rev. 22(2) (2010) 115–121.
17. A. Selden and J. Selden. Validations of Proofs Considered as Texts: Can Undergraduates Tell Whether an Argument Proves a Theorem?. J. Res. Math. Educ. 34 (1) (2003) 4-36.
18. L. Andrew. Creating a Proof Error Evaluation Tool for Use in the Grading of Student-Generated “Proofs”. PRIMUS: Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies 19(5) (2009) 447-462.
19. Amir and J. Williams. Cultural Influences on Children’s Probabilistic Thinking. J. Math. Behav. 18(10) (1999) 85-107.
20. J.M. Watson and R. Callingham. Statistical literacy: A complex hierarchical construct. Stat. Educ. Res. J. 2(2) (2003) 3-46.
21. S. Sharma. Qualitative Methods in Statistics Education Research: Methodological Problems And Possible Solutions. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Teaching Statistics (2010)
22. M. Hodds, L. Alcock and M. Inglis. Self-Explanation Training Improves Proof Comprehension. J. Res in Math Educ. 45(1) (2014) 62-101
23. U. Leron. Structuring mathematical proofs. Americ. Math. Month. 90(3) (1983) 174–184
24. J.P. Mejía-Ramos, E. Fuller, K. Weber, K. Rhoads, and A. Samkoff.An assessment model for proof comprehension in undergraduate mathematics. Educ. Stud.Math. 79(1) (2012) 3–18
25. E. Fuller, J.P. Mejía-Ramos, K. Weber, A. Samkoff, K. Rhoads, D. Doongaji, and K. Lew. Comprehending Leron’s structured proofs. In S. Brown, S. Larsen, K. Marrongelle, & M. Oehrtman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education (2011) 84–102.
26. J.Y. Hsiao, C.L. Hung, Y.F. Lan, and Y.C. Jeng. Integrating Worked Examples Into Problem Posing in a Web-based Learning Environtment. TOJET: Turk. Online J. Educ. Tech. 12 (2) (2013) 166-176
27. R.K. Atkinson, S.J. Derry, A. Renkl, and D. Worthan. Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Rev. Educ. Res. 70(2) (2000) 181-214.
28. K. Durkin. The self-explanation effect when learning mathematics: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness Spring 2011 Conference on Building and Education Science: Investigating Mechanisms, Washington, DC.
29. J. Sweller. Instructional design consequences of an analogy between evolution by natural selection and human cognitive architecture. Instruct. Sci. 32(1-2) (2004) 9-31.
30. Renkl. Worked-out examples: Instructional explanations support learning by self-explanations. Learn. Instruct. 12(5) (2002) 529–556.