HOME | Journal Archives | About | For Contributors | E-submission |

Sorry.

You are not permitted to access the full text of articles.

If you have any questions about permissions,

please contact the Society.

죄송합니다.

회원님은 논문 이용 권한이 없습니다.

권한 관련 문의는 학회로 부탁 드립니다.

Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics -
Vol. 30

[ Special ] | |

Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics - Vol. 30, No. SP1, pp.69-90 | |

Abbreviation: JERM | |

ISSN: 2288-7733 (Print) 2288-8357 (Online) | |

Print publication date 31 Aug 2020 | |

DOI: https://doi.org/10.29275/jerm.2020.08.sp.1.69 | |

Demystifying Proofs Through Structured Interaction: A Case Study of One Instructor’s Teaching in an Undergraduate Analysis Course | |

Pradip Narain ^{*} ; Andreas J. Stylianides^{**}^{, †}
| |

*Associate Professor (former), Jesus and Mary College (University of Delhi), India | |

**Professor, University of Cambridge, UK | |

Correspondence to : ^{†}Email: delhi.ime@gmail.com, as899@cam.ac.uk | |

Please cite this article as: Narain, P. & Stylianides A. J. Demystifying proofs through structured interaction: A case study of one instructor’s teaching in an undergraduate analysis course. |

Abstract

The concept of proof is central to every undergraduate mathematics curriculum, but it is also a difficult concept for university students to understand and for university instructors to teach. Prior studies have contributed useful research knowledge about the nature and sources of undergraduate students’ difficulties with proof, but they have paid less attention to the development of effective instructional practices to enhance student learning of proof. As a step towards this direction, this paper makes a contribution to the limited body of case studies of promising or potentially effective teaching practices in undergraduate mathematics by reporting a case study of an instructor’s teaching, locally characterized as “effective,” in an undergraduate analysis course at a leading Indian university. The instructor did not deviate from the so called “Definition-Theorem-Proof” (DTP) format that is followed in most proof-oriented university mathematics courses, but her teaching presented a set of features that, collectively, form a rather innovative teaching practice at the undergraduate level. Specifically, our case study shows that, even in the context of a rather crowded university classroom, proof can be demystified for students through structured interaction between the instructor and the students, that is, an interactive, conversational style of proof instruction invoking the participation of students. This is based on a solid foundation in symbolic logic at the very outset and on a significant time investment in definitions being explained in depth using informal language, visual aids, and real-life analogies. In addition to contributing to existing images of potentially effective teaching practices in undergraduate mathematics, this paper draws attention to the Indian educational context that has had little representation in international forums of mathematics education research thus far.

Keywords: Definition, Proof, Theorem, Undergraduate mathematics |

Acknowledgments

This paper is based on the MPhil dissertation of the first author, conducted under the supervision of the second author at the University of Cambridge, UK. The authors are grateful to Ms. X and to her students who participated in the study.

References

1. |
Antonini, S., & Mariotti, M. A. (2008). Indirect proof: What is specific to this way of proving? ZDM-The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40, 401–412. |

2. |
Ball, D. L. & Bass, H. (2000). Making believe: The collective construction of public mathematical knowledge in the elementary classroom. In D. Philips (Ed.), Constructivism in education: Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 193–224). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. |

3. |
Ball, D. L. & Bass, H. (2003). Making mathematics reasonable in school. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 27–44). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. |

4. |
Bartle, R. G., Sherbert, D. R. (2015). Introduction to real analysis (4 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.^{th} Ed.). |

5. |
Bilodeau, G. G., Thie, P. R., & Keough, G. E. (2011). An introduction to analysis (2 Jones & Bartlett Learning.^{nd} Ed.). |

6. |
Davis, P. & Hersh, R. (1981). The mathematical experience. New York: Viking Penguin Inc. |

7. |
Dreyfus, T. (1991). Advanced mathematical thinking processes. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 25-41). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. |

8. |
Durand-Guerrier, V. (2003). Which notion of implication is the right one? From logical considerations to a didactic perspective. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 53, 5-34. |

9. |
Elbaz, F. (1981). The teacher’s “practical knowledge”: Report of a case study. Curriculum Enquiry, 11(1), 43-71. |

10. |
Fukawa-Connelly, T. P. (2012). A case study of one instructor’s lecture-based teaching of proof in abstract algebra: making sense of her pedagogical moves. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 81, 325-345. |

11. |
Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (2007). Toward comprehensive perspectives on the learning and teaching of proof. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and Learning (pp. 805-842). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. |

12. |
Hoyles, C., & Küchemann, D. (2002). Students’ understanding of logical implication. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 51, 193-223. |

13. |
Inglis, M., & Alcock, L. (2012). Expert and novice approaches to reading mathematical proofs. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43, 358-390. |

14. |
Lai, Y., & Weber, K. (2014). Factors mathematicians profess to consider when presenting pedagogical proofs. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 85, 93-108. |

15. |
Lampert, M. (1992). Practices and problems in teaching authentic mathematics. In F. K. Oser, A. Dick, & J. Patry (Eds.), Effective and responsible teaching: The new synthesis (pp. 295–314). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. |

16. |
Leron, U., & Dubinsky, E. (1995). An abstract algebra story. The American Mathematical Monthly, 102, 227-242. |

17. |
Mesa, V., & Wagner, D. (2019). Behind the door: a critical look at the process of publication in Educational Studies in Mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 101(3), 301-324. |

18. |
Moore, R. C. (1994). Making the transition to formal proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27(3), 249-266. |

19. |
Rasmussen, C., & Marrongelle, K. (2006). Pedagogical content tools: Integrating student reasoning and mathematics in instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(5), 388-420. |

20. |
Reid, D. (2002). Conjectures and refutations in grade 5 mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(1), 5–29. |

21. |
Selden, A., & Selden, J. (2003). Validations of proofs written as texts: Can undergraduates tell whether an argument proves a theorem? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(1), 4-36. |

22. |
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-21. |

23. |
Solomon, Y. (2006). Deficit or Difference? The role of students’ epistemologies of mathematics in their Interactions with proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(3), 373-393. |

24. |
Speer, N., Smith, J., & Horvath, A. (2010). Collegiate mathematics teaching: An unexamined practice. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 29, 99–114. |

25. |
Stylianides, A. J. (2007). Proof and proving in school mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 289–321. |

26. |
Stylianides, A. J. (2016). Proving in the elementary mathematics classroom. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. |

27. |
Stylianides, A. J., Stylianides, G. J., & Philippou, G. N. (2004). Undergraduate students’ understanding of the contraposition equivalence rule in symbolic and verbal contexts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 55, 133-162. |

28. |
Stylianides, G. J., & Stylianides, A. J. (Eds.). (2017). Research-based interventions in the area of proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 96(2), pp 119-274. |

29. |
Stylianides, G. J., Stylianides, A. J., & Weber, K. (2017). Research on the teaching and learning of proof: Taking stock and moving forward. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 237-266). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. |

30. |
Tall, D. (2010). Perceptions, operations and proof in undergraduate mathematics. Community for Undergraduate Learning in the Mathematics Sciences Newsletter, 2, 21-28. |

31. |
Tan, Z. (2007). Questioning in Chinese university EL classrooms: What lies beyond it? RELC Journal, 38(1), 87-103. |

32. |
Thurston, W. P. (1994). On proof and progress in mathematics. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 30(2), 161-177. |

33. |
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(2), 115-133. |

34. |
Weber, K. (2010). Mathematics majors’ perceptions of conviction, validity, and proof. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 12(4), 306-336. |

35. |
Weber, K. (2012). Mathematicians’ perspectives on their pedagogical practice with respect to proof. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 43(4), 463-482. |

36. |
Yu, J. Y. W., Chin, E. T., & Lin, C. J. (2004). Taiwanese junior high school students’ understanding about the validity of conditional statements. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2, 257–285. |

37. |
Zack, V. (1997). “You have to prove us wrong”: Proof at the elementary school level. In E. Pehkonen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 291–298). Lahti, Finland: University of Helsinki. |

Copyright ⓒ statement 2012, Korean Society of Educational Studies in Mathematics All Rights Reserved.

Submitting manuscripts for peer review as well as other correspondences can either be made via online by an email (ksesm@daum.net) or sending a mail at Secretariat of

Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, #1305 Daewoo The'O Ville, 115 Hangang-daero, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, 04376, Republic of Korea (Tel: +82‐2‐797‐7780, Fax: +82‐2‐797‐7750).

Submitting manuscripts for peer review as well as other correspondences can either be made via online by an email (ksesm@daum.net) or sending a mail at Secretariat of

Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, #1305 Daewoo The'O Ville, 115 Hangang-daero, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, 04376, Republic of Korea (Tel: +82‐2‐797‐7780, Fax: +82‐2‐797‐7750).