Practical online assessment of mathematical proof

References

• Aigner M., & Ziegler G. (2018). Proofs from the book (6th ed.). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Butcher P. G., & Jordan S. E. (2010). A comparison of human and computer marking of short free-text student responses. Computers and Education, 55(2), 489–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne M., Hanusch S., Moore R., & Fukawa-Connelly T. (2017). Student interpretations of written comments on graded proofs. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 4, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-017-0059-0
   Google Scholar
• Carlson M., Oehrtman M., & Engelke N. (2010). The precalculus concept assessment: A tool for assessing students' reasoning abilities and understandings. Cognition and Instruction, 28(2), 113–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370001003676587
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies B. (2019). Comparative judgement and proof (Doctoral dissertation). Loughborough University.
   Google Scholar
• Harel G., & Sowder L. (2007). Towards comprehensive perspectives on the learning and teaching of proof. In Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 805–842). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
   Google Scholar
• Hodds M., Alcock L., & Inglis M. (2014). Self-explanation training improves proof comprehension. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45(1), 62–101. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.45.1.0062
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inglis M., & Alcock L. (2012). Expert and novice approaches to reading mathematical proofs. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43, 358–390. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.43.4.0358
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inglis M., Mejia-Ramos J. P., & Simpson A. (2007). Modelling mathematical argumentation: the importance of qualification. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66, 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-9059-8
   Google Scholar
• Kalyuga S., Ayres P., Chandler P., & Sweller J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalyuga S., Rikers R., & Paas F. (2012). Educational implications of expertise reversal effects in learning and performance of complex cognitive and sensorimotor skills. Educational Psychology Review, 24(2), 313–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9195-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kinnear G. (2019). Delivering an online course using STACK. In Contributions to the 1st international STACK conference 2018. Zenodo.
   Google Scholar
• Kinnear G., & Sangwin C. J. (2018). Contradiction and contrapositive, what is the difference? Scottish Mathematics Council Journal, 48, 84–90.
   Google Scholar
• Lane-Getaz S. (2013). Development of a reliable measure of students' inferential reasoning ability. Statisitics Education Research Journal, 12(1), 20–47.
   Google Scholar
• Liebeck M. (2000). A concise introduction to pure mathematics (2nd ed.). Chapman Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Mejía-Ramos J. P., Fuller E., Weber K., Rhoads K., & Samkoff A. (2012). An assessment model for proof comprehension in undergraduate mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9349-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mejía-Ramos J. P., Lew K., & Weber K. (2017). Developing and validating proof comprehension tests in undergraduate mathematics. Research in Mathematics Education, 19(2), 130–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2017.1325776
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore R. C. (1994). Making the transition to formal proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27, 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01273731
   Google Scholar
• Ording P. (2019). 99 variations on a proof. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Österholm M. (2006). Characterizing reading comprehension of mathematical texts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63, 325–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-005-9016-y
   Google Scholar
• Pointon A., & Sangwin C. J. (2003). An analysis of undergraduate core material in the light of hand held computer algebra systems. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 34(5), 671–686. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739031000148930
   Google Scholar
• Polya G. (1954). Mathematics and plausible reasoning. Vol.1: induction and analogy in mathematics. Vol 2. Patterns of plausible inference. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Recorde R. (1557). The whetstone of witte. London by I. Kyngston.
   Google Scholar
• Renkl A., Atkinson R. K., & Gross C. S. (2004). How fading worked solution steps works – a cognitive load perspective. Instructional Science, 32, 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021815.74806.f6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sangwin C. J. (2013). Computer aided assessment of mathematics. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sangwin C. J. (2019). Reasoning by equivalence: the potential contribution of an automatic proof checker. In Proof technology in mathematics research and teaching, Mathematics education in the digital era. Springer International.
   Google Scholar
• Sangwin C. J., & Jones I. (2017). Asymmetry in student achievement on multiple choice and constructed response items in reversible mathematics processes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 94, 205–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9725-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selden A., & Selden J. (1995). Research perspectives on concepts of functions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29(2), 123–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01274210
   Google Scholar
• Toulmin S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weber K. (2001). Student difficulties in constructing proofs: the need for strategic knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 48(1), 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015535614355
   Google Scholar
• Weber K. (2015). Effective proof reading strategies for comprehending mathematical proofs. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 1(3), 289–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-015-0011-0
   Google Scholar