Interference of prototypical geometry representations in students’ construction of concepts and development of proofs

References

• Ahmadpour, F., Reid, D., & Reza Fadaee, M. (2019). Students’ ways of understanding a proof. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 21(2), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2019.1570833
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balacheff, N. (1991). The benefits of limits of social interaction: the case of mathematical proof. In A. J. Bishop, S. Mellin-Olsen, & J. Van Dormolen (Eds.), Mathematical knowledge: its growth through teaching (pp. 175–192). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Charmaz, K., & Belgrave, L. L. (2007). Grounded theory. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosg070
   Google Scholar
• Cirillo, M., & Hummer, J. (2019). Addressing misconceptions in secondary geometry proof. The Mathematics Teacher, 112(6), 410–417. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteacher.112.6.0410
   Google Scholar
• Clements, D. H. (2004). Geometric and spatial thinking in early childhood education. In D. H. Clements, J. Sarama, & A.-M. DiBiase (Eds.), Engaging young children in mathematics: Standards for early childhood mathematics education (pp. 267–297). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Conner, K. A., & Krejci, B. (2022). Developing secondary students’ understanding of proof through constructing, critiquing, and revising arguments. Investigations in Mathematics Learning, 14(2), 101–116.‏. https://doi.org/10.1080/19477503.2021.2000201
   Google Scholar
• Crowley, M. L. (1987). The van hiele model of the development of geometric thought. In M. M. Lindquist (Ed.), Learning and teaching geometry, K-12 (pp. 1–16). NCTM.
   Google Scholar
• Dreyfus, T., & Hadas, N. (1994). Proof as answer to the question why. Zentralblatt fur Didaktik der Mathematik, 28(1), 1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Duval, R. (1998). Geometry from cognitive point of view. In C. Mammana & V. Villani (Eds.), Perspectives on the teaching of geometry for the 21st century (pp. 37–51). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Dvora, T., & Dreyfus, T. (2014). Unjustified assumptions in geometry made by high school students. Mediterranean Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 13(1–2), 29–55.
   Google Scholar
• Erdogan, E. O., & Dur, Z. (2014). Preservice mathematics teachers’ personal figural concepts and classifications about quadrilaterals. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(6), 107–133.‏. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n6.1
   Google Scholar
• Fetisov, A. I., & Dubnov, Y. S. (2012). Proof in geometry: With ‘mistakes in geometric proofs’. Dover Publications.‏.
   Google Scholar
• Fischbein, E. (1993). The theory of figural concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24(2), 139–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01273689
   Google Scholar
• Fischbein, E. (1994). The interaction between the formal, the algorithmic, and the intuitive components in a mathematical activity. In R. Biehler, R. W. Scholz, R. Strasser, & B. Winkelmann (Eds.), Didactics of mathematics as a scientific discipline (pp. 231–245). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Freudenthal, H. (1973). Mathematics as an educational task. Reidel Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Fujita, T. (2012). Learners’ level of understanding of the inclusion relations of quadrilaterals and prototype phenomenon. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(1), 60–72.‏. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2011.08.003
   Google Scholar
• Fujita, T., & Jones, K. (2007). Learners’ understanding of the definitions and hierarchical classification of quadrilaterals: Towards a theoretical framing. Research in Mathematics Education, 9(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794800008520167
   Google Scholar
• Gutiérrez, A., & Jaime, A. (1999). Preservice primary teachers’ understanding of the concept of altitude of a triangle. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2(3), 253–275. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009900719800
   Google Scholar
• Haj-Yahya, A. (2020). Do prototypical constructions and self-attributes of presented drawings affect the construction and validation of proofs?. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 32(4), 685–718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-019-00276-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haj-Yahya, A. (2021). Can a number of diagrams linked to a proof task in 3D geometry improve proving ability?. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 35(1), 215–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-021-00385-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haj-Yahya, A., & Hershkowitz, R. (2013). When visual and verbal representations meet - the case of geometrical figures. In A. M. Lindmeier & A. Heinze (Eds. Proceedings of the 37th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 2. pp. 409–416). PME.
   Google Scholar
• Haj-Yahya, A., Hershkowitz, R., & Dreyfus, T. (2023). Investigating students’ geometrical proofs through the lens of students’ definitions. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 35(3), 607–633.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanna, G. (1990). Some pedagogical aspects of proof. Interchange, 21(1), 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01809605
   Google Scholar
• Hersh, R. (1993). Proving is convincing and explaining. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24(4), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01273372
   Google Scholar
• Hershkowitz, R. (1989). Visualization in geometry: Two sides of the coin. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 11(1), 61–76.
   Google Scholar
• Hershkowitz, R. (1990). Psychological aspects of learning geometry. In P. Nesher & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Mathematics and cognition (pp. 70–95). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hershkowitz, R., Bruckheimer, M., & Vinner, S. (1987). Activities with teachers based on cognitive research. In M. M. Lindquist & A. P. Schulte (Eds.), Learning and teaching geometry, K-12, 1987 yearbook (pp. 223–235). NCTM.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, K. (2000). Providing a foundation for deductive reasoning: Students’ interpretations when using dynamic geometry software and their evolving mathematical explanations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1–2), 55–85.https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012789201736
   Google Scholar
• Karpuz, Y., & Atasoy, E. (2020). High school mathematics teachers’ content knowledge of the logical structure of proof deriving from figural-concept interaction in geometry. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 51(4), 585–603.‏ https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2020.1736347
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knimmune, S., Fujita, T., & Jones, K. (2010). Strengthening students’ understanding of ‘proof’ in geometry in lower secondary school. In V. Durand-Guerrier, S. Soury-Lavergne, & F. Azzarello (Eds.). Proceedings of the 6th congress of the European society for research in mathematics education (pp. 756–765). ERME.
   Google Scholar
• Laborde, C. (2005). The hidden role of the diagrams in students’ construction of meaning in geometry. In J. Kilpatrick, C. Hoyles, & O. Skovsmose (Eds.), Meaning in mathematics education (pp. 159–179). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-24040-3_11
   Google Scholar
• Mariotti, M. A. (2006). Proof and proving in mathematics education. In A. Gutiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and future (pp. 173–204). Rotterdam: Sense. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087901127_008
   Google Scholar
• Martin, T. S., McCrone, S. M. S., Bower, M. L. W., & Dindyal, J. (2005). The interplay of teacher and student actions in the teaching and learning of geometric proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60, 95–124.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-005-6698-0
   Google Scholar
• Martin, T. S., & McCrone, S. S. (2003). Classroom factors related to geometric proof construction ability. The Mathematics Educator, 7(1), 18–31.
   Google Scholar
• Miyazaki, M., Fujita, T., & Jones, K. (2017). Students’ understanding of the structure of deductive proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 94(2), 223–239.‏. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9720-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, R. C. (1994). Making the transition to formal proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27(3), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01273731
   Google Scholar
• Okazaki, M., & Fujita, T. (2007). Prototype phenomena and common cognitive paths in the understanding of the inclusion relations between quadrilaterals in Japan and Scotland. In J. H. Woo, H. C. Lew, K. S. Park, & D. Y. Seo (Eds.). Proceedings of the 31st conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 4. pp. 8–41). PME.
   Google Scholar
• Övez, F. T. D., & Özdemir, E. (2024). An examination of pre-service teachers’ Van Hiele levels of geometric thinking and proof perception types in terms of thinking processes. Educational Research & Reviews, 19(1), 26–39. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2023.4386
   Google Scholar
• Parzysz, B. (1988). Knowing vs. seeing, problems of the plane representation of space geometry figures. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 19(1), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00428386
   Google Scholar
• Pickreign, J. (2007). Rectangles and rhombi: How well do pre-service teachers know them? Issues in the Undergraduate Mathematics Preparation of School Teachers, 1, 1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Presmeg, N. C. (1992). Prototypes, metaphors, metonymies and imaginative rationality in high school mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23(6), 595–610. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00540062
   Google Scholar
• Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. (3rded.) Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Sears, R. (2019). Proof schemes of pre-service middle and secondary mathematics teachers. Investigations in Mathematics Learning, 11(4), 258–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/19477503.2018.1467106
   Google Scholar
• Senk, S. L. (1985). How well do students write geometry proofs?. The Mathematics Teacher, 78(6), 448–456. https://doi.org/10.5951/MT.78.6.0448
   Google Scholar
• Shayeb, H., Awawdeh-Shahbari, J., & Haj-Yahya, A. (2024). First- and second-grade prospective teachers reconstructing definitions of polygon diagonals. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 1–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tall, D. O., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics, with special reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12(2), 151–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00305619
   Google Scholar
• Ulusoy, F. (2023). Middle school students’ reasoning with regards to parallelism and perpendicularity of line segments. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 54(7), 1187–1206.‏. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2022.2049384
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urhan, S., & Bülbül, A. (2023). Analysis of mathematical proving in geometry based on Habermas’ construct of rationality. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 35(4), 929–959.‏. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-022-00420-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Hiele, P. M., & van Hiele, D. (1958). A method of initiation into geometry. In H. Freudenthal (Ed.), Report on methods of initiation into geometry (pp. 67–80). Wolters.
   Google Scholar
• Vinner, S. (1991). The role of definitions in the teaching and learning of mathematics. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 65–81). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47203-1_5
   Google Scholar
• Vinner, S., & Hershkowitz, R. (1980). Concept image and common cognitive paths in the development of some simple geometrical concepts. In R. Karplus (Ed.), Proceedings of the 4th annual conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 177–184). PME.
   Google Scholar
• Vinner, S., & Hershkowitz, R. (1983). On concept formation in geometry. Zentralblatt fur Didaktik der Matematik, 83(1), 20–25.
   Google Scholar
• Zaslavsky, O., & Shir, K. (2005). Students’ conceptions of a mathematical definition. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36, 317–346.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar