Undergraduates’ Example Use in Proof Construction: Purposes and Effectiveness

References

• Alcock, L. J. (2004). Uses of example objects in proving. In M. J. Hoines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education: Vol. 2 (pp. 17-24). Bergen, Norway: Bergen University College.
   Google Scholar
• Alcock, L. (2010). Mathematicians’ perspectives on the teaching and learning of proof. In F. Hitt, D. A. Holton & P. Thompson (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education. VII (pp. 63-91). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
   Google Scholar
• Alcock, L. & Inglis, M. (2008). Doctoral students’ use of examples in evaluating and proving conjectures. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 69, 111-129.
   Google Scholar
• Alcock, L. J. & Simpson, A. P. (2004). Convergence of sequences and series: Interactions between visual reasoning and the learner’s beliefs about their own role. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57, 1-32.
   Google Scholar
• Alcock, L. J. & Simpson, A. P. (2005). Convergence of sequences and series 2: Interactions between non-visual reasoning and the learner’s beliefs about their own role. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58, 77-110.
   Google Scholar
• Alcock, L. J. & Weber, K. (2005). Referential and syntactic approaches to proof: Case studies from a transition course. In H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29^th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education: Vol. 2 (pp. 33-40). Melbourne, Australia: University of Melbourne.
   Google Scholar
• Alcock, L. & Weber, K. (2010). Referential and syntactic approaches to proof: Case studies from a transition-to-proof course. In F. Hitt, D. A. Holton & P. Thompson (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education. VII (pp. 93-114). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
   Google Scholar
• Balacheff, N. (1988). Aspects of proof in pupils’ practice of school mathematics. In D. Pimm (Ed.), Mathematics, Teachers and Children (pp. 216-235). London: Hodder and Stoughton.
   Google Scholar
• Bills, C., Bills, L., Watson, A. & Mason, J. (2004). Thinkers: A collection of activities to provide mathematical thinking. Derby, UK: Association of Teachers of Mathematics.
   Google Scholar
• Bills, E. & Tall, D. (1998). Operable definitions in advanced mathematics: The case of least upper bound. In A. Olivier and K. Newstead (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22^nd Conference for the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education Vol. 2 (pp. 104-111). Stellenbosch, South Africa: University of Stellenbosch.
   Google Scholar
• Dahlberg, R. P., & Housman, D. L. (1997). Facilitating learning events through example generation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33, 283-299.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, P. J. & Hersh, R. (1981). The mathematical experience. New York: Viking Penguin, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Dreyfus, T. (1991). On the status of visual reasoning in mathematics and mathematics education. In F. Fwringhetti (Ed.), Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Volume 1 (pp. 33-48). Assissi, Italy: IGPME
   Google Scholar
• Garuti, R., Boero, P. & Lemut, E. (1998). Cognitive units of theoms and difficulty of proof. In A. Olivier & K. Newstead (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education: Vol. 2, (pp. 345-352). Stellenbosch, South Africa: University of Stellenbosch.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, D. (1998). Students’ use of diagrams to develop proofs in an introductory real analysis course. In A. H. Schoenfeld, J. Kaput, E. Dubinsky & T. Dick (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education. III (pp. 284-307). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
   Google Scholar
• Gray, E., Pitta, D., Pinto, M., & Tall, D. (1999). Knowledge construction and diverging thinking in elementary and advanced mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38, 111-133.
   Google Scholar
• Harel, G. & Sowder, L. (1998). Students’ proof schemes: Results from exploratory studies. In A. H. Schoenfeld, J. Kaput, E. Dubinsky & T Dick (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education. III, (pp. 234-283). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
   Google Scholar
• Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (2007). Toward a comprehensive perspective on proof. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 805-842). Charlotte, NC: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
   Google Scholar
• Hart, E. W. (1994). A conceptual analysis of the proof-writing performance of expert and novice students in elementary group theory. In J. J. Kaput and E. Dubinsky (Eds), Research issues in undergraduate mathematics leaning: Preliminary analysis and results, MAA Notes 33 (pp. 49-62). Washington, D.C.: Mathematical Association of America.
   Google Scholar
• Housman, D. & Porter, M. K. (2003). Proof schemes and learning strategies of above-average mathematics students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 53, 139-158.
   Google Scholar
• Mason, J. H. (with Burton, L. & Stacey, K.) (1985). Thinking Mathematically (Rev. ed.). Harlow, Essex, UK: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Mason, J. H. & Pimm, D. (1984). Generic examples: Seeing the general in the particular. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15, 227-289.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, R. C. (1994). Making the transition to formal proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27, 249-266.
   Google Scholar
• Pinto, M. & Tall, D. O. (1999). Student construction of formal theories: Giving and extracting meaning. In O. Zaslavsky (Ed.), Proceedings of the 23^rd Conference for the International Group of the Psychology of Mathematics Education: Vol. 1 (pp. 281-288). Haifa, Israel: Technion, Israel Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Pinto, M. & Tall, D. O. (2002). Building formal mathematics on visual imagery: A case study and a theory. For the Learning of Mathematics, 22(1), 2-10.
   Google Scholar
• Polya, G. (1957). How to Solve it (2nd edition). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reio, A. M. & Godion, J. D. (2001). Institutional and personal meanings of proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 48, 83-99.
   Google Scholar
• Rowland, T. (2001). Generic proofs in number theory. In S. R. Campbell & R. Zazkis (Eds.), Learning and teaching number theory: Research in cognition and instruction (pp. 157-184). Ablex Publishing, Westport, CT.
   Google Scholar
• Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press Inc.
   Google Scholar
• 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, 34, 4-36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selden, A. & Selden, J. (2008). Overcoming students’ difficulties in learning to understand and construct proofs. In M. Carlson & C. Rasmussen (Eds.), Making the connection: Research and teaching in undergraduate mathematics (pp. 95-110). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
   Google Scholar
• Sowder, L. & Harel, G. (2003). Case studies of mathematics majors’ proof understanding, construction, and appreciation. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 3, 251-267.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Vinner, S. (1991). The role of definitions in teaching and learning mathematics. In D. O. Tall (Ed.), Advanced Mathematical Thinking (pp. 65-81). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Watson, A. & Mason, J. H. (2002). Extending example spaces as a learning strategy in mathematics. In A. Cockburn & E. Nardi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26^th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education: Vol. 4 (pp. 377-384). Norwich, UK: University of East Anglia.
   Google Scholar
• Watson, A. & Mason, J. H. (2004). Mathematics as a constructive activity: Learners generating examples. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Weber, K. (2001). Student difficulty in constructing proofs: The need for strategic knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 48, 101-119.
   Google Scholar
• Weber, K. (2003). Students’ difficulties with proof. In A. Selden and J. Selden (Eds.), Research Sampler, 8. Retrieved March 20, 2007 from http://www.maa.org/t_and_1/sampler/rs_8.html
   Google Scholar
• Weber, K. (2004). Traditional instruction in advanced mathematics courses. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 23, 115-133.
   Google Scholar
• Weber, K. (2006). Investigating and teaching the processes used to construct proofs. In F. Hitt, G. Harel & S. Hauk (Eds.), Research in college mathematics education. VI (pp. 197-232). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
   Google Scholar
• Weber, K. & Alcock, L. J. (2004). Semantic and syntactic proof productions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56, 209-234.
   Google Scholar
• Zazkis, R. & Chernoff, E. J. (2008). What makes a counterexample exemplary? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 69, 195-208.
   Google Scholar
• Zazkis, R. & Leikin, R. (2008). Exemplifying definitions: A case of a square. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 69, 131-148.
   Google Scholar