Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 0 Download : 0

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

This paper studies how four primary-school in-service teachers develop the mathematical practices of conjecturing and proving. From the consideration of professional development as the legitimate peripheral participation in communities of practice, these teachers’ mathematical practices have been characterised by using a theoretical framework (consisting of categories of activities) that describes and explains how a research mathematician develops these two mathematical practices. This research has adopted a qualitative methodology and, in particular, a case study methodological approach. Data was collected in a working session on professional development while the four participants discussed two questions that invoked the development of the mathematical practices of conjecturing and proving. The results of this study show the significant presence of informal activities when the four participants conjecture, while few informal activities have been observed when they strive to prove a result. In addition, the use of examples (an informal activity) differs in the two practices, since examples support the conjecturing process but constitute obstacles for the proving process. Finally, the findings are contrasted with other related studies and several suggestions are presented that may be derived from this work to enhance professional development.

Keywords

conjecturing proving primary-school in-service teachers professional development research mathematicians

Article Details

Creative Commons License

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

How to Cite
Fernández-León, A. ., Gavilán-Izquierdo, J. M. ., & Toscano, R. . (2021). A case study on how primary-school in-service teachers conjecture and prove: an approach from the mathematical community. Journal on Mathematics Education, 12(1), 49–72. Retrieved from https://jme.ejournal.unsri.ac.id/index.php/jme/article/view/3731
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Alibert, D., & Thomas, M. (2002). Research on mathematical proof. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 215-230). Dordrecht: Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47203-1_13
  2. Astawa, I. W. P., Budayasa, I. K., & Juniati, D. (2018). The process of student cognition in constructing mathematical conjecture. Journal on Mathematics Education, 9(1), 15-26. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.9.1.4278.15-26
  3. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554
  4. Blömeke, S., Kaiser, G., König, J., & Jentsch, A. (2020). Profiles of mathematics teachers’ competence and their relation to instructional quality. ZDM Mathematics Education, 52(2), 329-342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01128-y
  5. Boero, P. (Ed.). (2007). Theorems in school: From history, epistemology and cognition to classroom practice. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
  6. Boero, P., Garuti, R., & Lemut, E. (2007). Approaching theorems in grade VIII: Some mental processes underlying producing and proving conjectures, and conditions suitable to enhance them. In P. Boero (Ed.), Theorems in school: From history, epistemology and cognition to classroom practice (pp. 249-264). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
  7. 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. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003697329618
  8. Burton, L. (2004). Mathematicians as enquirers: Learning about learning mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-7908-5
  9. Carrillo-Yañez, J., Climent, N., Montes, M., Contreras, L. C., Flores-Medrano, E., Escudero-Ávila, D., Vasco, D., Rojas, N., Flores, P., Aguilar-González, A., Ribeiro, M., & Muñoz-Catalán, M. C. (2018). The mathematics teacher’s specialised knowledge (MTSK) model. Research in Mathematics Education, 20(3), 236-253. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2018.1479981
  10. Chong, M. S. F., Shahrill, M., & Li, H-C. (2019). The integration of a problem-solving framework for Brunei high school mathematics curriculum in increasing student’s affective competency. Journal on Mathematics Education, 10(2), 215-228. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.10.2.7265.215-228
  11. Fernández-León, A., Gavilán-Izquierdo, J. M., & Toscano, R. (2020). A case study of the practices of conjecturing and proving of research mathematicians. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2020.1717658
  12. Hidayah, I. N., Sa’dijah, C., Subanji, R., & Sudirman, S. (2020). Characteristics of students’ abductive reasoning in solving algebra problems. Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(3), 347-362. http://doi.org/10.22342/jme.11.3.11869.347-362
  13. Huang, C-H. (2016). Examples as mediating artifacts in conjecturing. American Journal of Educational Research, 4(19), 1295-1299. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-4-19-3
  14. Knuth, E. J. (2002). Secondary school mathematics teachers’ conceptions of proof. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(5), 379-405. https://doi.org/10.2307/4149959
  15. Ko, Y. (2010). Mathematics teachers’ conceptions of proof: Implications for educational research. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(6), 1109-1129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9235-2
  16. Lakatos, I. (1976). Proof and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139171472
  17. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355
  18. Lesseig, K. (2016). Conjecturing, generalizing and justifying: Building theory around teacher knowledge of proving. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 17(3), 1-31.
  19. Lynch, A. G., & Lockwood, E. (2019). A comparison between mathematicians’ and students’ use of examples for conjecturing and proving. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 53, 323-338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.07.004
  20. Martin, W. G., & Harel, G. (1989). Proof frames of preservice elementary teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(1), 41-51. https://doi.org/10.2307/749097
  21. Martín-Molina, V., González-Regaña, A. J., & Gavilán-Izquierdo, J. M. (2018). Researching how professional mathematicians construct new mathematical definitions: A case study. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 49(7), 1069-1082. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2018.1426795
  22. Mason, J., Burton, L., & Stacey, K. (1982). Thinking mathematically. London: Addison Wesley.
  23. Melhuish, K., Thanheiser, E., & Guyot, L. (2018). Elementary school teachers’ noticing of essential mathematical reasoning forms: Justification and generalization. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 23(1), 35-67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-018-9408-4
  24. Morselli, F. (2006). Use of examples in conjecturing and proving: An exploratory study. In J. Novotná, H. Moraová, M. Krátká, & N. Stehlíková (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 4, pp. 185-192). Prague: PME.
  25. Muñoz-Catalán, M. C. (2009). El desarrollo profesional en un entorno colaborativo centrado en la enseñanza de las matemáticas: El caso de una maestra novel [Professional development in a collaborative context focused on mathematics teaching: The case of a novice teacher] (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://rabida.uhu.es/dspace/handle/10272/2949
  26. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  27. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/Math
  28. Oflaz, G., Polat, K., Altaylı Özgül, D., Alcaide, M., & Carrillo, J. (2019). A Comparative research on proving: The case of prospective mathematics teachers. Higher Education Studies, 9(4), 92-111. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v9n4p92
  29. Oktaviyanthi, R., Herman, T., & Dahlan, J. A. (2018). How does pre-service mathematics teacher prove the limit of a function by formal definition? Journal on Mathematics Education, 9(2), 195-212. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.9.2.5684.195-212
  30. Ouvrier-Buffet, C. (2015). A model of mathematicians’ approach to the defining processes. In K. Krainer & N. Vondrová (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 2214-2220). Prague: Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Education and ERME.
  31. Podkhodova, N., Snegurova, V., Stefanova, N., Triapitsyna, A., & Pisareva, S. (2020). Assessment of mathematics teachers’ professional competence. Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(3), 477-500. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.11.3.11848.477-500
  32. Polya, G. (1954). Mathematics and plausible reasoning: Patterns of plausible inference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  33. RAND Mathematics Study Panel. (2003). Mathematical proficiency for all students: Toward a strategic research and development program in mathematics education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1643.html
  34. Rasmussen, C., Wawro, M., & Zandieh, M. (2015). Examining individual and collective level mathematical progress. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 88(2), 259-281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-014-9583-x
  35. Rasmussen, C., Zandieh, M., King, K., & Teppo, A. (2005). Advancing mathematical activity: A practice-oriented view of advanced mathematical thinking. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7(1), 51-73. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327833mtl0701_4
  36. Siswono, T. Y. E., Hartono, S., & Kohar, A. W. (2020). Deductive or inductive? Prospective teachers’ preference of proof method on an intermediate proof task. Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(3), 417-438. http://doi.org/10.22342/jme.11.3.11846.417-438
  37. Stylianides, A. J., & Ball, D. L. (2008). Understanding and describing mathematical knowledge for teaching: Knowledge about proof for engaging students in the activity of proving. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(4), 307-332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-008-9077-9
  38. Stylianides, A. J., & Stylianides, G. J. (2018). Addressing key and persistent problems of students’ learning: The case of proof. In A. J. Stylianides & G. Harel (Eds.), Advances in mathematics education research on proof and proving: An international perspective, ICME-13 monographs (pp. 99-113). Cham: Springer International Publishing AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70996-3_7
  39. Treffers, A. (1987). Three dimensions. A model of goal and theory description in mathematics education: The Wiskobas project. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3707-9
  40. Turrisi, P. A. (Ed.). (1997). Pragmatism as a principle and method of right thinking: The 1903 Harvard lectures on pragmatism. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
  41. Tymoczko, T. (Ed.). (1998). New directions in the philosophy of mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  42. Ubuz, B., & Yayan, B. (2010). Primary teachers’ subject matter knowledge: Decimals. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 41(6), 787-804. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207391003777871
  43. U.K. Department of Education (2014). National curriculum in England: Mathematics programmes of study. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-mathematics-programmes-of-study
  44. Van Dormolen, J. (1977). Learning to understand what giving a proof really means. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 8(1), 17-34. https://doi.org/doi:10.1007/BF00302502
  45. Watson, F. R. (1980). The role of proof and conjecture in mathematics and mathematics teaching. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 11(2), 163-167. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739800110202
  46. Weber, K. (2008). How mathematicians determine if an argument is a valid proof. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 431-459.
  47. Weber, K., & Dawkins, P. C. (2018). Toward an evolving theory of mathematical practice informing pedagogy: What standards for this research paradigm should we adopt? In A. J. Stylianides & G. Harel (Eds.), Advances in mathematics education research on proof and proving: An international perspective, ICME-13 monographs (pp. 69-82). Cham: Springer International Publishing AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70996-3¬_5
  48. Weber, K., Inglis, M., & Mejia-Ramos, J. P. (2014). How mathematicians obtain conviction: Implications for mathematics instruction and research on epistemic cognition. Educational Psychologist, 49(1), 36-58. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.865527
  49. Weber, K., & Mejia-Ramos, J. P. (2011). Why and how mathematicians read proofs: An exploratory study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 76(3), 329-344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9292-z
  50. Yilmaz, R. (2020). Prospective mathematics teachers’ cognitive competencies on realistic mathematics education. Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(1), 17-44. http://doi.org/10.22342/jme.11.1.8690.17-44

Most read articles by the same author(s)